E!! The True Conservative Story™

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.

.

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…?

???

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:

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

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

All gone!

(H/T:  Friends of ATR blog)

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.”

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.

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

Dontgomovement.com has a “Caption It” graphic challenge up today.  Check it out and give it your best shot!