E!! The True Conservative Story™

Fact:  Democrats control the Nevada State Senate, 12-9.

Fact:  Due to the 2/3 super-majority rule, Nevada Democrats cannot pass a tax increase without the votes of (at least) two Republican senators.

Fact:  No Republican senator would dare to vote for a tax hike without the blessing of Senate Minority Leader Bill Raggio (R-Reno).

Conclusion:  Whether or not Nevada’s citizens, businesses and/or tourists get socked with a huge new tax hike in 2009 pretty much depends on Sen. Bill Raggio.

Action Item:  Call, fax, or email Sen. Raggio and respectfully urge him to oppose tax increases in these, the final days of the 2009 legislative session.

Toll-free Phone: 1-800-992-0973  or  1-800-995-9080
Fax: 1-775-786-1177
Email: wraggio@sen.state.nv.us

Action Item 2:  Forward this post to your friends!

Steve Wynn on Jon Ralston’s Face to Face:  “Anybody who raises taxes now is psychotic.”

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.

Well, I guess we need to have another Tax Day TEA Party ASAP!  What part of “get out of our wallets” and “stop ‘helping’ us!” and “stop spending money that doesn’t need to be spent” and ”stop hiring government employees to do things we can do ourselves” does the government not understand…?   Good grief!!

This “plan” from the White House is so outrageous and hair-brained and so likely to have the opposite of the intended effect that it is hard to even believe (copied and pasted from The Corner to save time):

“Thousands of people, many waving hand-painted signs and American flags, held tax day ‘tea parties’ Wednesday in Las Vegas and Carson City as part of a nationwide movement to protest what they consider excessive government spending.  At Sunset Park (in Las Vegas), an estimated 2,000 to 2,500 people gathered to hear speakers and express their views. Demonstrators along Eastern Avenue and Sunset Road attracted a stream of honks from passing traffic throughout the afternoon.”

 - Las Vegas Review-Journal, 4/16/09

 ”…In Carson City, an angry crowd of 2,000 demanded that legislators not increase taxes…in a protest outside the Legislative Building.  Legislative police and Carson City sheriff’s deputies said the gathering was the largest they had seen in more than 30 years in the state capital.”

 - Las Vegas Review-Journal, 4/16/09

 ”Sen. Maurice Washington, R-Sparks…said (the Carson City tea party) was the largest protest he has seen in his 16 years in Carson City. Estimates ranged from 2,000 to 3,000 people.”

 - Reno Gazette-Journal, 4/16/09

 ”More than 1,500 people waved signs, tea bags and American flags in front of the Legislature (in Carson City) on Wednesday as part of the national Tax Day Tea Party to protest what they said was reckless federal government spending. . . . Organizers said the movement developed organically through online social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter and through exposure on Fox News.”

 - Nevada Appeal, 4/16/09

 ”(P)rotesters who attended a modern-day TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party at Sunset Park on Wednesday afternoon hope their actions in protesting high taxation, increased government spending embodied in the federal stimulus package and all things Obama will carry a similar message.  Metro Police estimated the crowd at between 1,500 and 2,000 people and said there were no problems at the event, which was one of dozens held nationwide.  Clark County Republican Party Executive Director Susane Crawford organized the event at Sunset Park. Speakers included officials of the Libertarian and Independent American Parties.”

 - Las Vegas Sun, 4/16/09

 ”This isn’t a Republican event, this isn’t a Democratic event.  This is an American event.”

 - Las Vegas conservative talk-show host Casey Hendrickson, speaking at the Las Vegas Tea Party

 ”Americans from both (major) political parties turned out on Wednesday. From reports I received, some speakers were booed if they got too partisan. The point? The point is that we’ve seen both Republicans and Democrats turn their back on the American people. Spending, spending, spending, and taxes, taxes, taxes. It is too much, and we’ve all had enough.”

 - Bobby Eberle, editor and publisher of GOPUSA.com, 4/16/09

“The modern-day Paul Reveres have had enough….  People have been venting their frustration since the global economy began its meltdown.  Citizens are angry watching the government spend billions and billions of dollars with no constraints in place, while they must juggle household budgets and income and wonder if they’ll have a job the following day.”

 - Lahontan Valley News editorial, 4/15/09

from Mark Krikorian @ The Corner:

A reader wrote me saying that at the Greenville, S.C., Tea Party, “They will be selling the ‘Obama burger’ — you pay for one and they cut it in half and give the rest to the guy behind you for free!!”

Our team needs more political theater and fewer marketing consultants.

My friend and fellow grassroots organizer, Eric Odom, debates a sarcastic and dismissive Bill Press about the TEA Parties – who started them, who’s funding them, and what they mean – on Fox News Channel.  Here’s the video clip.

A few notes:

Bill’s opening quip – “I smell a rat” – made me roll my eyes.  And his contention that the Tea Parties are “not genuine” and are “funded by big Republican groups” and that the “timing is politically suspicious”…are ill-informed, wrong, and frankly, silly.

The TEA Party movement was and is a grassroots thing.  It started with a few small blogger-groups who organized some small demonstrations awhile back, and then the idea spread like wildfire online (”new media”) and on the “small” airwaves:  via blogs, email forwards, BlogTalkRadio, RFC Radio, Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Ning networking sites, message boards, and chat rooms.

The biggest evidence that this is a grassroots effort is the lack of funding and the lack of central control/planning.  Here in Nevada, I’ve seen about a dozen different web pages posting  3 different locations and a dozen different time windows for the TEA (Taxed Enough Already!) Party events.  People got wind of the idea, liked it, and started organizing their own mini-events among their own friends and networks.  When they all show up today, it will be Big – but not because the mythical Vast Right Wing Consiracy and/or Big GOP is behind it.

Here in Las Vegas, there was/is NO BUDGET for our Tea Party event.  A few dozen very committed leader-volunteers and about 800 local volunteer-helpers spread the word about the event/rally.   The only money spent (that I’m aware of) was the $200 plunked down this past Friday by Chuck Muth of Citizen Outreach, for a picnic area at Sunset Park.  Chuck offered to do this when he got wind that we (the organizers and volunteers) were being told that local radio station KXNT – which wanted/wants to cover the event – could not set up a broadcast table, nor could we set up a small podium, mic, and sound/speakers, on or near the sidewalks at the designated protest areas.

Most of the people I know who are attending here have NEVER participated in a protest or a picket line.  General disgust and a wish to be heard has drawn them out.

Whatever the Snarkmeisters wish to say, the Tax Day TEA Parties are a grassroots, post-partisan/non-partisan thing.  People are simply fed up with the endless bailouts, lack of accountability and transparency, ridiculous earmarks, huge deficits, frightening federal budget, and the like.

I guess the estate tax is my hot issue this week, along with the Tax Day Tea Parties.

Read this post by David Freddoso @ The Corner, and add all this stuff to the Reasons We Need to Abolish the Death Tax list.  Here’s a clip:

…the death tax routinely forces small to medium-sized private businesses with a few million dollars in assets to be liquidated, simply in order to pay the tax. Such businesses usually have to be sold to large corporations at distressed prices. Two famous examples are the once-family-owned Buffalo News and Dairy Queen — both snapped up by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway.

Moreover, the death tax is an effective $12 billion annual subsidy to the life insurance industry, according to Dick Patten of the American Family Business Institute. As the purveyors of the financial product of choice for avoiding the tax, the industry has lobbied heavily to keep it in place. (It should come as little surprise that Buffett, who also made a fortune in life insurance, is a big supporter of the tax.)

The loser from the death tax is not some billionaire swimming in his pool of cash. The real losers include:

1. the small businessman or entrepreneur who invests in his business and hopes to leave something behind for his kids.
2. the people he might hire if he didn’t have to pay enormous monthly life insurance premiums, in expectation of otherwise losing millions to the death tax.
3. in some places, citizens who once enjoyed reading their local newspapers, before they were all bought up by large corporations.

There is another problem, too. A business-owner pays income taxes at the top rate for years and years, and immediately upon his death the government can come right back for the rest of it, seizing at the margin 55 percent of every dollar in assets he leaves behind. How is that just?

It’s outrageous that the companies of hard-working American businessmen should be raped and pillaged this way.  And shame on Warren Buffet for supporting the tax so he can swoop in and buy up the broken pieces of a dead man’s life – for cheap.

Veronique @ The Corner is on fire today.  Memorize the data so you can speak intelligently on the issue of income taxes:

Everyone Should Pay Income Taxes   [Veronique de Rugy]

I am sure the proposition that “everyone should pay income taxes” seems obvious to you and me. And yet, the reality is quite different. Over at the Wall Street Journal, Ari Fleischer, Pres. George W. Bush’s former press secretary, has some interesting numbers about how many taxpayers pay the income tax, and how much each group contributes.

At the top:

A very small number of taxpayers — the 10% of the country that makes more than $92,400 a year — pay 72.4% of the nation’s income taxes. They’re the tip of the triangle that’s supporting virtually everyone and everything. Their burden keeps getting heavier.

At the bottom:

According to the CBO, those who made less than $44,300 in 2001 — 60% of the country — paid a paltry 3.3% of all income taxes. By 2005, almost all of them were excused from paying any income tax. They paid less than 1% of the income tax burden. Their share shrank even when taking into account the payroll tax. In 2001, the bottom 60% paid 16.3% of all taxes; by 2005 their share was down to 14.3%. All the while, this large group of voters made 25.8% of the nation’s income.

While very politically appealing, it has some serious economic implications:

Picture an upside-down pyramid with its narrow tip at the bottom and its base on top. The only way the pyramid can stand is by spinning fast enough or by having a wide enough tip so it won’t fall down. The federal version of this spinning top is the tax code; the government collects its money almost entirely from the people at the narrow tip and then gives it to the people at the wider side. So long as the pyramid spins, the system can work. If it slows down enough, it falls.

The open question is: When will it stop spinning? Read the whole thing here.

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%.

Just received (pass it on!):

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Chuck Muth
(702) 531-5551
April 11, 2009

Citizen Outreach Joins Las Vegas Tax Day TEA

Party/Rally/Picnic to Be Held at Sunset Park

(Las Vegas, NV) – Citizen Outreach Foundation has teamed up with citizen-volunteer Tax Day TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party organizers for the rally being held this Wednesday, April 15th, at Sunset Park in Las Vegas. Citizens unhappy with local, state and federal government taxing, spending, borrowing and bailing-out public policies will gather to voice and show their displeasure. More than 500 similar rallies will be held nationwide on the same day.

Since the Clark County Department of Parks and Recreation wouldn’t allow TEA party organizers to use the park unless they were having a picnic and rented one of the picnic areas, Citizen Outreach President Chuck Muth stepped up to pay the rental fee and officially host a “picnic” for rally participants from 11:30 am until 2:30 pm.

“The government said we had to hold a picnic in order to use their park, so I decided to host a ‘pork’ roast!” Muth said. “What could be more appropriate? So bring your blanket, your kids, your folding chairs and a picnic basket and join our protest against higher taxation and pork-barrel spending. Forget about work; Obama has you covered!”

Keynote remarks will be delivered around 1:00 pm by special guest Herman Cain. Cain is a national motivational speaker, a FOX News business commentator, and host of “The Herman Cain Show” on WSB 750 AM out of Atlanta, Georgia. He’s the former chairman of Godfather’s Pizza, as well as a former president of the National Restaurant Association. Cain also ran for the United States Senate in Georgia in 2004.

Additional scheduled speakers include:

* Susane Crawford, Las Vegas Tax Day TEA Party director

* Casey Hendrickson and Heather Kydd, talk-show hosts for KXNT-840 AM

* Wayne Allyn Root, the Libertarian Party’s 2008 presidential candidate

* Chris Hansen, former state chairman of the Indpendent American Party

* Geoffrey Lawrence, Fiscal Policy Director for the Nevada Policy Research Institute

* Elizabeth Crum, award-winning blogger of “E!! The True Conservative Story”

Sunset Park is located at the southeast corner of Sunset and Eastern near the airport. Picnic Area F is located in the southwestern section of the park near the dog runs. Use the south entrance off Eastern into the huge parking area adjacent to Picnic Area F.

For additional information, contact Susane Crawford at (702) 374-7733 or by email at edirector@clarkgop.org

Nevada Appeal has the details.

NV Senator Bob Coffin hoped to gain support for the bill (SB 369) but yesterday’s testimony by brothel owners and employees didn’t generate the needed votes from the Taxation Committee (four of seven votes are needed to move the bill forward).

Coffin argued that prostitution is a legal activity that should be subject to tax like any other service and says $2M in much-needed state revenue would be generated by the new tax of $5 per sex act.

A dissenting brothel owner said the tax would cause a further decline in the number of customers due to the economic downturn.

The fiscal and moral arguments against the tax are obvious, and I agree with them.

But – is it wrong of me to ask why the bill proposes a flat, per-act tax rather than a percentage of the total sale like most businesses?  Skimming $5 off a $100 service would result in a 5% tax, but $5 out of $1,000 is only one half of 1%.

Surely Senator Coffin can agree it wouldn’t be fair to have Nevada’s low-income, underpriveleged whores paying out a higher percentage of their wages than the high-dollar girls? 

Or are they so used to getting screwed that Coffin thinks they won’t mind?

UPDATE:  Two readers emailed in on SB 369 name-ology, suggesting we call it the “Flat On Your Back” Tax.  Good idea, but Chuck Muth beat them to it.

…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.

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.)

LOL

This story out of TN has cheered me up considerably.

Apparently Representative Kent Williams sold out conservative Tennessee voters and his own party when he  stole the House Speaker’s chair at the last minute – with the help of Democrats with whom he has been secretly conspiring.  And apparently the TN GOP decided not to take it lying down.  From a resolution of their Executive Committee:

Whereas the supporters, voters and donors of the Tennessee Republican Party have a right to expect that, having collectively campaigned for and won a majority in the state House for the first time since 1868, both houses of the legislature would be lead by loyal Republican leadership; and

Whereas the evidence shows that Representative Kent Williams had been planning his betrayal for eight weeks and conspiring with Democrats to crown him Speaker in exchange for betraying his fellow Republican caucus members; and

Whereas Representative Kent Williams rewarded his Democratic allies with committee chairmanships, putting at risk the Republican agenda the majority of Tennessee voters voted for; and

Whereas Kent Williams’ actions and words provide indefensible evidence to the 30 written challenges questioning the Bona Fide status as a Republican; and is entitled to its constitutional right of Freedom of Association; and

Whereas the Tennessee Republican Party seeks to disassociate with Representative Kent Williams;

BE IT RESOLVED:

1. That state Representative Kent Williams of Carter County, Tennessee, be forever barred from seeking elective office in Tennessee on a Republican ballot; and

2. That the Tennessee Republican Party immediately request all media outlets in Tennessee to cease referring to Representative Kent Williams as a Republican.

3. That Kent Williams receive no support, endorsements, or financial backing by those affiliates of the Tennessee Republican Party.

Can they DO that?

Yes.  As the resolution notes, the Republican Party enjoys the constitutionally protected right of Freedom of Association.

Hmmm…

Have the state parties in Pennsylvania and Maine – home to RINO (Republican In Name Only) sell-out Sens. Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins – heard about this pithy little resolution out of Tennessee?

Maybe the GOP in every state should start disassociating themselves from Republican legislators who sell out conservative values, the voters, and the party that got them elected.

I can think of one state, in particular, in which at least one prominent Republican seems to be conspiring with Democrats to give “bi-partisan” support for tax hikes in the middle of a huge recession.

I’ll give you one guess which state – and which Senator – it is.

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!!)

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

.

Nevada’s most incorrigible tax hater, Chuck Muth, penned a pretty good one today.  Read it for yourself, but here’s a sum-up with a little E!! on the side:

The Silver State’s usual tax-and-spend suspects are crying a river over what amounts to a 10% budget cut (not 15%, not 22%, and not 34%, as has been reported by various hysterical persons who shall go unnamed).

Yes indeedy, 10% is the official figure that Andrew Clinger, the state’s official Budget Director, is officially using in his official correspondence with people.  According to Clinger, Gov. Gibbons’ proposed general fund budget this year “is $632.9 million smaller than last biennium,” a reduction of 9.3 percent. 

So why all the discrepancies, disparities, and dispepsia over huge budget cuts?  Let’s have a little history (and MATH) lesson and see:

2003:  The Legislature increased taxes by more than 3/4 of a billion dollars.  And there were no spending cuts.  Then-REPRESENTATIVE Jim Gibbons criticized then-Governor Kenny Guinn for not cutting 3/4 of a billion dollars from the budget rather than raising taxes. 

2005:  Wonder of wonders, Nevada had a budget surplus of about 3/4 of a billion dollars.  Gov. Guinn put some of the surplus into the Rainy Day Fund and rebated $300 million back to the taxpayers.  The general fund budget was around $6 billion.

2007:  Gov. Guinn is out; Gov. Gibbons is IN.  Gibbons SHOULD HAVE proposed a budget which included the 3/4 of a billion in cuts he’d suggested to Guinn back in 2003, which is to say he should have proposed a budget of around $5.5 billion (allowing for inflation and giving a little leeway and such).  But instead Gibbons suffered from sudden budget amnesia (SBA) and proposed about a billion dollars MORE in state spending.  So the Gibbons budget was nearly $7 billion.

2008:  Astonishingly enough, The Economic Forum projects actual revenues coming into the state coffers at around $5.5 billion.

SO, here we are, 2009:  Looking at the insufficient funds left over from 2007’s budget and faced with having to roll back spending to 2005 levels based on current state revenues.

AND the big-government gurus want the 2009 Legislature to spend NOT ONLY the $7 billion the government already can’t afford, but ANOTHER $1 billion on top of that!   Yes, it’s true:  the spendy spenders are demanding $8 billion in government spending while the state is only taking in $5.5 billion.

AND – here’s the big finish, folks! – the Spenders are calling any talk like the Talk I just talked (i.e. only spending what we are actually taking in), an “irresponsible $2.5 BILLION BUDGET CUT.”

.

Any questions?!

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.

Here’s another tired story about how the most helpless people in our society – our disabled, our children, and our disabled children - will be harmed if the Nevada legislature makes any more cuts to the state budget.

(yawn)

The thing about these kinds of stories is that most people don’t dare criticize them because then you’re called a supporter of “unconscionable” acts and a heartless hating hater of autistic kids.

Unless you’re me, and then you dare.

As a general rule, large government bureaucracies run so inefficiently and are guilty of so much over-spending and waste that any run-of-the-mill efficiency auditor could find ways to shave 5 to 10% without much of an impact on anyone.

If you doubt me, check out some of the information on the new Transparent Nevada website.

Like the sum total of the astronomical above-market salaries, overtime, and benfits packages being paid to some state employees.  A few reasonable adjustments and everyone could keep their jobs while the state saves about $100 million.

Or the astoundingly large vendor contracts that exist just here in Clark County.  You cannot convince me that out of the six $100,000,000 – ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLAR – contracts, there are no reasonable cost reductions that could be made while still maintaining adequate service levels.

It’s all about identifying and reducing inefficiency and waste - not cheating the poor kids out of their speech therapy classes.

Patrick Gibbons, a researcher-analyst at the Nevada Policy Research Institute (NPRI), has a new piece up.

It’s worth the read if you want to (1) understand where Nevada REALLY is with its budget issues, (2) be informed about the questions that remain unanswered, and (C) be reminded that when it comes to politics and money, the devil is always in the details.

Gibbons points out that depending on which newspaper, pundit or politician you believe, you might think Nevada has a budget shortfall of $5.6 billion, $4.5 billion, $2.5 billion, $1.2 billion – or no real shortfall at all. And so you might think we need to cut between 34% and 0% of the budget in order to cover the shortfall.

The questions are: Who is right, and what accounts for the differences in math? And how can the public (or our elected officials) have intelligent policy discussions if we can’t even agree on the basis basics?

In order to wade through it all, one first needs to understand that the General Fund (GF) is not the same as the total state budget. In fact, the GF makes up only 37.5% of the overall budget. The recommendation for the General Fund for the current biennium (FYI: we do our state budgets two years at a time, if you didn’t know that) was $5.8 billion, but the overall recommendation for the state budget was $18 billion.

The other thing to know (ask!) when talking about either the General Fund or the overall state budget is whether people are extrapolating their numbers from (1) the originally projected and appropriated sums or or the currently projected sums, and (2) ditto on the revenue.

Read the NPRI piece and see for yourself!

(And if you have any questions, submit them here and we’ll see if we can get Patrick to stop by and explain things.)

Iain Murray recently had a good post on the general arguments for them, and for meddling or not meddling with them.

At a recent meeting of Nevada conservative and libertarian leaders it was interesting to note that although we each came from different points on the political spectrum and disagreed on some things, we found one general policy area in which we all agreed:  fiscal policy.  Namely:  free market, small (and transparent) government, low tax, balanced-budget approaches.

The LVSun reports that Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley wants to put two cents from every dollar of state revenue into the Nevada’s rainy day fund. Says the Sun:

Buckley said Wednesday that in the upcoming legislative session, she will propose a “forced savings account” into which 2 cents of every “new dollar” of state revenue would be deposited. New dollars would be any money that comes in above existing revenue levels.

Taking the pennies from new dollars would prevent this system from siphoning funding from existing programs, she said.

Having talked with state Sen. Bill Raggio, R-Reno, and Democrat Steve Horsford, the state Senate’s new majority leader, among others, Buckley said she has not “found one person who does not think it’s a good idea.”

It’s also been reported that (1) Democratic Sen. Bob Coffin has suggested a “temporary” tax that would cease when certain savings goals are met, and (2) our “no new taxes” governor Jim Gibbons has said he might agree to approve a temporary new or increased tax if it has an expiration date.

If Coffin’s plan flies and Gibbons signs off, I guess we’ll have to call him the ”no new taxes unless you pinky swear they won’t last forever” governor.

Vis a vis my Spreading the Wealth post and the differences between Sebelius and I on who-should-vote-how-and-why, I was delighted to run across this piece from Jonah Goldberg.  I quote:

Another example of a tactic masquerading as a principle is contemporary liberalism’s fixation with the idea that the working and middle class should “vote their interests,” by which they mean vote for the most government goodies. This was the point of Obama’s “bitter” and “clinging” comments last summer. Those poor deluded souls in western Pennsylvania don’t understand that their real interests lie with Obama’s economic agenda.

For all the liberal protests claiming that Obama’s “bitter” comments were misunderstood, his remarks were, in fact, mainstream on the Left. For instance, Thomas Frank, something of a guru to angry liberals, wrote in his book What’s the Matter with Kansas? that, “People getting their fundamental interests wrong is what American political life is all about. This species of derangement is the bedrock of our civic order; it is the foundation on which all else rests.” And, he added at great length, it is the reason so many deluded working- and middle-class Americans vote Republican (or at least why so many did when Frank wrote his book).

This has always struck me as hypocritical, pernicious lunacy. Legitimate election issues are those issues voters decide are legitimate. Americans who cling to religion and guns don’t do so out of bitterness, but because they consider such things central to their understanding of the good life and resent what they perceive as hostility to their lifestyle from their own government. And no liberal opposes voting on values issues — including gay rights — when they think they’re right or if they believe it helps get liberals elected. Liberals denounce rich people who vote their interests as “greedy” and celebrate limousine liberals who vote against their own interests as heroes.

I was interested to see Jonah’s mention of Thomas Frank’s book because I linked up to it in my earlier post (because Steve Sebelius mentioned it the other day on KNPR when making his point).  As soon as WTMWKansas was invoked, I shook my head and knew right where we were headed.  Guys like Frank think conservative Heartland voters are too dumb, deluded, or simple to vote the “right” way.  Right being to say Yes to higher taxes on the wealthy and Yes to more breaks and government handouts for themselves.

Frank & Co. cannot comprehend why some poor sap would rather live poor on what he legitimately earns and dutifully pay his fair share of taxes than get a pass or take a handout from his fellow (richer) taxpayers.  They insist on shoving their leftist But-We-Are-Here-to-Help-You agenda down poor Kansas Man’s throat – and delight in calling him dumb when he spits it out.

A reader emails:

Is it possible that by “freeing” the poor from paying any tax at all, they are, in essence, being completely disenfranchised?  That they do not care where the tax money goes because it doesn’t come out of their pockets?  That not being required to pay taxes sends the subtle message that they are inferior?  Thus perpetuating the victim and “gimme gimme” mentality?

I’ve often wondered whether even the poorest among us should pay some taxes in order to keep them in the game, so to speak.

Keep in mind that the poorest citizens not only pay no taxes but receive income “credits” from the government (i.e. our taxpayer dollars).  A mother earning minimum wage ($13,624 annually) with one dependent child taking the standard deduction not only owes “0″ tax, she also gets a check for $3,850 through the Earned Income Credit and Child Tax Credit.  And with two children that number jumps to $6,710, so at year end she has “earned” $20,334 in combined income and credits while having contributed nothing to the tax base (though her employer has paid some payroll tax).

.

Wednesday morning during our KNPR panel discussion, LV City Life editor Steve Sebelius ridiculed the anti-socialist sentiments of Joe the Plumber and reminded listeners that America already “spreads the wealth around” via our existing social democracy and graduated tax system.  Steve also commented on the strange (to him) fact that Heartland voters like Joe will often self-defeatingly vote “against their own self interest” by opposing tax increases on hgher income famlies that would enable tax cuts for themselves and/or the funding of entitlement programs that would benefit them.

It seems that Steve and others of like mind have trouble understanding a man who votes based on principle – even if that principle might not benefit him immediately and/or directly.

So:  is Joe the Plumber, who one day hopes to own his own business and does not want to be taxed to death when he does, a big dummy for voting against the candidate who promised him a tax cut based on his present income?  He’s recently answered questions about this, as well as his general opposition to wealth redistribution, and here is the gist of what he said:

He understands that he’s earning less than $100K right now and that Obama’s tax plan would therefore benefit him in the short term.  But he also believes Obama’s tax plan and health care mandate will make it more difficult for him to succeed in the future (i.e. to start and then profit from a small business).  Joe says he is content to pay his taxes, if they are fair and reasonable.  He is willing to work hard and wants to earn his future wealth.  He does not want special breaks or handouts that he knows come out of another man’s pocket.  He does not want to pay less in taxes so another man has to pay more, and he does not want to be the man who someday pays more while others pay far less.  He believes that lower taxes on businesses create jobs, which benefits everyone (because companies that make money will generally invest profits and expand).

But yesterday Jonah Goldberg echoed Sebelius in reminding us that whatever our principles and ideals, the U.S. is a social democracy with a progressive, redistributionist tax system.  Our poorest citizens pay somewhere between 0 and 10 percent in federal income tax; the middle class pays 15 to 28 percent; and the highest earners pay 33 or 35 percent.  He writes:

A new study by the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development reveals that the United States “has the most progressive tax system and collects the largest share of taxes from the richest 10 percent of the population.” Our tax system is, in fact, the most “pro-poor,” according to a Tax Foundation analysis of that study, of any developed country’s save Ireland. That’s right, we’re more progressive than France and Sweden.

The bottom 40 percent of income earners receive more from the federal income tax system than they pay into it. Meanwhile, the top 10 percent pay 71 percent of all income tax, despite only earning 39 percent of our pretax income. Taxes on the top 1 percent constitute 40 percent of tax dollars.

So here’s my question:  Is sweeping tax reform a necessary part of a truly conservative agenda and should we therefore be pushing for a flat (or flatter) tax system?  Or are we resigned to things as they are and content to squabble over the difference between 35 and 39%? 

.

Update:  Steve Sebelius emails with the following:

Actually, if you listen to the [KNKPR] tape again, you’ll see I went out of my way to make it clear that IF a voter considers his own economic self-interest a factor, then a voter of Joe the Plumber’s situation would have voted for Obama. I did not necessarily endorse using one’s own economic situation as a guide to voting; surely, plenty of very wealthy people who would be taxed more heavily voted for Obama, and plenty of less well-off people voted for McCain. I don’t condemn them for voting on principle, and made that clear on the show.  

Me:  I guess I’ll have to listen to the tape.  My impression in the moment was that Steve said guys like Joe are foolish and/or unintelligent and/or wrong for not voting in their own immediate economic self interest. 

Update 2:  Steve’s exact words were:  “There are people voting the wrong way by not voting their economic interests.” 

At least in that sentence, Steve was priveleging present economic interests over other factors, and indicating that voters (who don’t see it that way) are making a mistake.

However, Steve also says that the rich people who voted for Obama were voting against their own economic interest, and it was “the right thing to do.”

So, if someone like Joe votes against his own economic interest with a conservative/Republican vote, he’s voting wrong; but if a rich person votes against his own economic interest with a liberal/Democrat vote, he’s voting right…?

???

Read about it here on Boston.com.

Nevada state senator Bob Beer’s campaign office has been located at 6822 W. Cheyenne Ave., Las Vegas, NV for the last six months or so.  He says that a couple of weeks ago, two doors down, an Obama campaign office opened.  Beers’ staffers thought maybe Obama had adopted a new slogan, but it turns out the previous tenant prepared tax returns and the Obama people neglected to take down the old sign:

Cliff May had a goodie the other day.  And it’s been nagging at me ever since.  The gist is this:

We all know that taxation without representation is a form of tyranny. But as so many have been saying lately, roughly 40% of Americans today don’t pay income taxes.

So, what if in the next administration that number rises to 51% or more?

At that point, the majority of Americans - who would not be paying any taxes – could and would elect leaders who could and would decide how much the tax paying minority would have to remit to the government.

That money could and would then be redistributed to the non-taxpaying majority through government programs and services.

A majority of Americans would then enjoy representation without taxation, and Voila, we have The Tyranny of the Non Taxayers.

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the support of Paul. – George Bernard Shaw

.

From Americans for Tax Reform

Five Things You Might Not Know About Obama’s Small Business Tax Hikes

WASHINGTON, DC— Americans for Tax Reform today released the following “top five” facts related to the Obama tax hike on small businesses:

1.        Two-thirds of small business profits are earned in households making more than $250,000 per year—the very households Obama is shouting from the rooftops that he will raise taxes on (Source: IRS Statistics of Income Bulletin*).  Small business profits are used to create jobs and invest in America .  This is the answer to the Obama campaign’s irrelevant claim that the number of small businesses affected will be small—the fact is that the bulk of profits will face a tax hike. 

2.      Small businesses pay income taxes at the household level.  This means that the Obama plan to raise tax rates is a direct tax hike on small businesses—sole proprietorships, partnerships, S-corporations, and family farms.

3.       The tax rate on the lion’s share of small business income could reach 54.9 percent under a President Obama (the individual top rate will climb from 35 percent to 39.6 percent and the Social Security/Medicare tax rate could climb from 2.9 percent to 15.3 percent.  Put those together, and you get 54.9 percent) (Source: www.barackobama.com)

4.      This 54.9 percent tax rate would be the highest since the Carter Administration, when America suffered through double-digit inflation and unemployment (Source: Congressional Budget Office)

5.       America’s 26 million small businesses employers give a paycheck to 116 million employees (Source: Census Bureau).  When small business taxes go up, millions of these employees will be at risk of being laid off.

“Obama’s tax increases will only affect you if you have a 401(k), have any savings, buy things from small businesses or are looking for a job,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.  “If you fall into one of these categories, his policies will screw you.  Otherwise, you’re fine.”

* “Small business profits” is equal to the net profits less net losses of sole proprietors, S-corporation shareholders, and partners.  According to the IRS, two-thirds of these small business profits are earned in households with adjusted gross income (AGI) equal to or greater than $200,000.  In 2006, $473 billion of the $706 billion (two-thirds) of small business profits was earned in households Obama has said he would raise tax rates on.

This post on the values of capitalism over on Overcoming Bias is just excellent.

It starts with this quote:

“The financial crisis is not the crisis of capitalism.  It is the crisis of a system that has distanced itself from the most fundamental values of capitalism, which betrayed the spirit of capitalism.”
        — Nicolas Sarkozy

and includes gems like:

The fundamental morality of capitalism lies in the voluntary nature of its trades, consented to by all parties, and therefore providing a gain to all.

and

Vigorous work is praiseworthy but should be accompanied by equally vigorous results.

and

No one has a right to their job.  Not the janitor, not the CEO, no one.  It would be like a rationalist having a right to their own opinion.  At some point you’ve got to fire the saddle-makers and close down the industry. 

and

No company has a right to its continued existence.  Change happens.

and

A high standard of living is the just reward of hard work and intelligence.  If other people or other places have lower standards of living, then the problem is the lower standard, not the higher one.  Raise others up, don’t lower yourself.  A high standard of living is a good thing, not a bad one – a universal moral generalization that includes you in particular.  If you’ve earned your wealth honestly, enjoy it without regrets.

and

People safeguard, nourish, and improve that which they know will not be taken away from them.  Tax a little if you must, but at some point you must let people own what they buy.

and

In countries that are lawful and just, the government is the referee, not a player.  If the referee runs onto the field and kicks the football, things are starting to get scary.

and

Making money is a virtuous endeavor, despite all the lies that have been told about it, and should properly be found in the company of other virtues.  Those who set out to make money should not think of themselves as fallen, but should rather conduct themselves with honor, pride, and self-respect, as part of the grand pageantry of human civilization rising up from the dirt, and continuing forward into the future.

Amen!

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)

The sky’s been falling on Wall Street, and now hell is officially freezing over: Harry Reid is defending the same tax cuts that he once opposed and blasted as being “for the rich.”

So says Susan Jones of CNS News, who is reporting on the Senate debates of the “rescue bill” (still an Obama-ism, still smacks of false victimology, still hate it).

In an attempt to grease the Senate wheels on this bill, Reid now says he supports an Alternative Minimum Tax relief: $8 billion for natural disaster victims, and $78 billion in renewable energy incentives and extended tax breaks.

Reid’s commentary included statements like “we’ve got to get this done” and “it would be a blight on this Congress not to pass these tax extenders” and “tens of thousands of jobs will be created.”

How wonderful that liberal Democrat Harry Reid has finally admitted that tax cuts help businesses and create middle class jobs.

Pigs, commence flight.

Update:  George reminds us that Obama had a revelation on taxation also:  when he said that as president he would delay rolling back the Bush tax cuts if the economy was weak…essentially acknowledging that tax hikes hurt the economy.

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). 

Had a good conversation with a conservative friend this weekend re: government spending and Republican Rep. Jon Porter’s apparent affinity for it (despite his claims to the contrary – especially, my friend noted, when he is looking for campaign contributions).

This convo occured before I read John Ralston’s column in the Las Vegas Sun yesterday, in which he noted that although Porter has a new ad slamming Democrat challenger and former state senator Dina Titus for voting for the largest tax hike in Nevada’s history back in 2003 - which she did – Porter likely would have voted for it, too.  

In light of Jon Porter’s record of voting for pork bills in Congress, including this year’s scandalous Farm Bill, Ralston’s assumption is fair.

Does Jon Porter really think he can sell himself as a fiscal conservative at this point?  And even if he tries, why on earth would we believe him? 

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.”

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.