E!! The True Conservative Story™

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

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

Yep, that about sums it up.

Just a snippet:

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

Or two:

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

RTWT.

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.

.

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?!

Read it for yourself. 

Sum up:  This is a blank check from Bush for the inauguration.

Like many Americans last week, I tuned in for the 30-minute Barack-o-mercial. 

In between the anecdotal close-ups of struggling American families – a widow working two jobs and raising two kids; a husband and father worried about his job at the Ford plant – I noted that Obama’s megacommercial failed to present hard data on the cost of his proposed programs and said nothing about our huge federal deficit and the corresponding budget pressures he will face once in office. 

Obam’s description of his health care plan – which “includes improving information technology, requires coverage for preventive care and pre-existing conditions, and lowers health care costs for the typical family by $2,500 a year” – sounds very nice, but there has been no independent economic analysis confirming that costs will really be reduced by that (or any) amount.

Obama simply Hopes that spending $50 billion on his proposed Changes over the next five years will save the system money.  But even if his optimistic estimates prove out, Obama’s plan does not stipulate that the net savings by insurance and health care providers will result in lower premiums for consumers.

And then we have Obama’s promises to “cut taxes for every working family making less than $200,000 a year…  Give businesses a tax credit for every new employee they hire…  Eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas…  Help homeowners by freezing foreclosures for 90 days… Provide low-cost loans to help small businesses pay their workers and keep their doors open…”

Independent analysts have estimated that combined with our current budget shortfalls, these and other of Obama’s proposals will likely result in a $1 trillion deficit next year.  That being unthinkable, some purging will be necessary.  But which of his programs will Obama cut, and why has he been promising all of them if he knows at least some must go?

Though much of his infomercial focused on the “hard realities” of life for select American families, Obama seems unwilling or unable to face reality himself.  It seems he could stand to learn something from that widowed mother of two who has to settle for half instead of whole gallons of milk when the money runs short – and doesn’t promise her family otherwise on the way to the store.

Patrick Gibbons of the Nevada Policy Research Institute has an excellent education blog post up.  It addresses the disproportionately high cost of new school construction in Nevada compared to other states.  Re-stated:  we are great at being inefficient.

Apparently, Nevada ranks third in the nation in construction costs per student.  Gibbons reminds us of the billions voters recently approved for new Clark County schools and then does the math.  It comes out to roughly $130M per school (though, to be fair, Gibbons says the school district will use some portion of the funds to refurbish old buildings).

There are quite a few things Nevada could do to shore up efficiency and reduce spending.  Including making it easier to form charter schools and create and use school vouchers, so financing for at least some new school construction can move to the private sector.  

Pushing the risk of building the schools onto the private sector naturally creates incentives to keep construction costs low – because their costs have to be recouped by attracting students – but even if they should spend an excess, it wouldn’t be the taxpayers’ problem.

Victor Davis Hanson is always worth the read.  Today’s column is on the basic lessons we can learn from the financial mess.

An excerpt:

The new national gospel became charge now/pay later and speculate, rather than put something away in case of a downturn. To provide more goodies that we hadn’t earned, politicians ignored soaring annual budget deficits and staggering national debt and kept spending.

The lessons:

First, cash really is king. For all the talk of a trillion here or billions there, when the crunch came, many of these investment houses and their once-strutting managers found themselves with a minus net worth. They were desperate to find liquidity — any money anywhere they could find it. Pedestrian passbook savings accounts proved wiser investments than all the clever hedge funds, derivatives, and sub-prime schemes put together.

And:

Second, wisdom and blue-chip college educations are not quite the same thing. The fools in Washington and New York who blew up Wall Street had degrees from our finest professional schools.

And:

Third, we as a nation need to relearn the old notion of shame — as in “shame on you!” Firms like Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns were once responsible Wall Street institutions, built up over decades by sober men. But their far-lesser successors in just a few months have bankrupted these venerable brokerage houses — with seemingly no shame at what they have done to the image of Wall Street.

Americans used to pay their debts. Somewhere in all the blame-gaming about the crooks and liars in New York and Washington, we never hear that real people borrowed real money that they should not have. And they then defaulted on what they owed to others. Walking away from debts may have been understandable, but it was also a violation of trust — and wrong.

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.”

“(Sarah Palin) brought down Alaska’s governor, attorney general, and state Republican chairman. She killed the ‘bridge to nowhere.’ She used increased tax revenues from high oil prices to give Alaskans a rebate. She slashed government spending. She took on the biggest industry in Alaska, the oil companies, to work out an equitable deal on building a new gas pipeline. Obama can’t match even one of these accomplishments.”

- Fred Barnes, The Weekly Standard, 8/30/08

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.