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.”

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).

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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%.