E!!

Nearly every argument in favor of universal (socialized) health care includes the premis that it is a “right.”  But according to the U.S. Constiution, this is not so.  Geoff Lawrence over at NPRI explains why by giving us a brief lesson (via the writings of John Locke) about how the Constitution does not in fact support “positive rights.”  If you wish to effectively debate someone on health care reform (or any other entitlement program), you must understand this fundamental concept.  I recommend that you read Geoff’s whole post, but here’s the opener to give you a taste:

In the ongoing debate over health care reform, I continue to hear pundits on the left claim that health care is a right. Yet, this notion that government exists to guarantee “positive rights” such as free health care completely misunderstands the development of constitutional government.

The entire notion of constitutional government can be traced to John Locke’s Second Treatise. Here it is explained that all men are endowed with a set of natural rights which include: life, liberty and property. In order to protect those rights, civilized individuals agree to a “social contract” in order to form a government whose primary purpose is to protect the rights of individuals. This is done by empowering government to restrain the actions of others (such as theft, physical violence, etc.) that might directly infringe on your own natural rights. Hence the expression “Your rights end where someone else’s begin.”

The primary problem with the concept of “positive rights” is that the purpose of government changes from protecting the natural rights of individuals to actively infringing upon those rights. Any requirement for government to provide individuals with a certain amount of goods means that those goods must first be confiscated from society – which is a limit on the natural right to control property.

Just so.

For a wonderful treatise on why the government should not be in the business of deciding whether or how much to take from us in order to give to select others, read this story that was told on the House floor by Davy Crockett when he was serving as a U.S. Representative from Tennessee.  It concerned two votes on spending bills and the temptation of Congress to distribute money that was not their own for “charitable” purposes.

Our federal and state legislatures, as well as the Oval Office, have too long been staffed by too many people who do not understand nor support our rights and protections as they ought to exist according to our Constitution.   Through the increasing willingness of we, the citizenry, to allow government to do what we, as individuals, ought to be doing – helping and giving to the poor and needy as we are able and as we feel called to do – we have permitted our great Republic to become a tax-laden “social democracy” that reduces rather than protects our prosperity and freedom.

On May 23, 1857, in a letter to an American friend, Lord Thomas MacCauley wrote: “A democracy cannot survive as a permanent form of government. It can last only until its citizens discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority (who vote) will vote for those candidates promising the greatest benefits from the public purse, with the result that a democracy will always collapse from loose fiscal policies, always followed by a dictatorship.”

Are we there yet?  Not quite, but I fear we are getting dangerously close.  Educate yourselves, good people, and let us find ways to speak out and persuade others before this great Republic devolves into a pitiful excuse for the nation it once was.

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).

From Chuck’s Muth’s News & Views:

Now here’s the sort of talk we like to hear from a Republican governor…

“Common sense dictates that when you’re in a hole it’s vital you stop digging. Requiring our state to spend beyond its means for the next 24 months to be eligible for all the stimulus moneys guarantees that (our state) will dig itself a $740 million financial hole. Who helps us then? Do we raise taxes, and thereby weaken our competitiveness relative to other states and countries — or do we just summarily end programs for some of the neediest of our state?
 
“Or are we to plan on yet another round of stimulus windfall from Washington in two years — again, with money we don’t have? I don’t know the answer to these questions, but I do know the $740 million budget hole created would be the largest such hole in (our) state financial history.”

Unfortunately, that’s not Nevada’s tax-hiking Republican governor talking.  It’s a true conservative Republican governor talking:  South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford. 

Wish there were more like him.  Wish he was our governor.

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.

If  you can, call and urge these NV legislators to vote against the budget:

Sen. Reid       202-224-3542

Sen. Ensign     202-224-6244

Rep. Heller     202-225-6155

Numbers for the “Mod Squad” in the Senate:

Evan Bayh (IN): 202-224-5623
Mark Begich (AK): 202-224-3004
Michael Bennet (CO): 202-224-5852
Thomas Carper (DE): 202-224-2441
Kay Hagan (NC): 202-224-6342
Claire McCaskill (MO): 202-224-6154
Mary Landrieu (LA): 202-224-5824
Joe Lieberman (CT): 202-224-4041
Ben Nelson (NE): 202-224-6551
Jeanne Shaheen (NH): 202-224-2841

Also… these Republicans are on the fence:

Arlen Specter (PA): 202-224-4254
Olympia Snowe (ME): 202-224-5344

If you think – after the AIG/Bailout/Stimulus fiasco – that you can stomach listening to Pelosi, Reid, Durbin, Frank, Dodd, and others pledging their faith in Obama’s commitment to restraint, accountability, and transparency, check out this video of compiled statements.

Hat Tip:  Ericka Andersen and www.GOP.gov

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!!)

Stephen Spruiell & Kevin Williamson @ NRO list and detail the 50 most outrageous items in the stimulus package.  This is the best, most comprehensive sum-up I’ve seen.  Read it and weep call your senator today.

Yesterday 18 free market and limited government leaders released a letter urging the Senate to reject “the Bill.” 

And Rasumussen reported that more Americans oppose the $1.2 trillion (including intest) bill than support it.   Here are some blurbs:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 37% favor the legislation, 43% are opposed, and 20% are not sure.

Two weeks ago, 45% supported the plan. Last week, 42% supported it.

Opposition has grown from 34% two weeks ago to 39% last week and 43% today.

Sixty-four percent (64%) of Democrats still support the plan. That figure is down from 74% a week ago. Just 13% of Republicans and 27% of those not affiliated with either major party agree.

Seventy-two percent (72%) of Republicans oppose the plan along with 50% of unaffiliated voters and 16% of Democrats.

Meanwhile Congressional Republicans doubt whether the bill will save or create the 3 to 4 million jobs Obama and the Dems claim.

The bill is full of pork and nonsense and needs to be scrapped.

It is now the eve of the 75th convening of the Nevada Legislature.  But don’t get too excited, kids!  Tomorrow will be a day of glad-handing and back-slapping and silly grinning.

Anyone waiting for actual state business to be done will have to wait (at least) until Tuesday.  Longer, probably, since the the Dems still have not put forth a comprehensive budget proposal, and it’s going to be more than a 5 minute job to solve our $600 million budget shortfall.

Even then, with the Dem super-majority in the Assembly, the best that minority leader Heidi Gansert will be able to do is convince her team that supporting tax-and-spend policies is bad for their electoral futures.  And if they don’t believe her and choose to join the Dems in a “bi-partisan” action, I’m guessing it’ll be D-Day for them in 2010.

Update: Steve Sebellius has the Democrat “plan” – all two vague-sounding, double-spaced, extra large font pages of it – here.

.

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 staff researcher at the Nevada Policy Research Institute, has a good column on higher education costs in the Reno Gazette-Journal.  He cuts through the hype and runs down the realities of the present budget crunch and then offers some viable cost-saving solutions based on success stories from Virginia Tech and other universities. 

Gibbons says Nevada needs to become better educated about delivering efficient, effective higher education services so rising costs (and fees) do not exceed inflation and income growth.

Jim Rogers and others need to leave the Stone Age behind and get with a financially responsible, 21st century program. 

If you are interested in learning more or becoming involved in education reform in Nevada, consider attending this conference on Wednesday, January 14.  E!! will be there to listen and learn along with many business and community leaders.

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.)

State Assemblyman James Settelmeyer (R-Gardnerville) is looking for ways Nevada can tighten the budgetary belt.  He says the state could save over a million dollars a year if it stopped serving hot breakfast to its prison inmates.

The Las Vegas Review Journal reports that Greg Smith, a spokeperson for the Department of Corrections, admits hot breakfasts – like pancakes and eggs – are indeed being served but says Nevada spends just $2.17 per day per inmate on meals. He further defends the hot plate practice by saying the eggs are “not cooked to order.”

With or without the pancakes, E!! fully endorses the punishment of felons through egg choice deprivation.  The fear of losing one’s autonomy on the question of “scrambled” or “sunny side up” is no doubt a frightening and therefore effective deterrent for those who might otherwise be tempted to a life of crime.

Whatever your personal egg prejudice, please communicate your support for the “No Pancakes for Prisoners” campaign to Assemblyman Settelmeyer.

Write:

770 Hwy 395 N
Gardnerville, NV 89410-7813

Call:

Office:  775-684-8843

Cell:  775-450-6114

Email:

jsettelmeyer@asm.state.nv.us

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.

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.

Charles Krauthammer explains why he’s voting for McCain.

My favorite parts:

I stand athwart the rush of conservative ship-jumpers of every stripe — neo (Ken Adelman), moderate (Colin Powell), genetic/ironic (Christopher Buckley) and socialist/atheist (Christopher Hitchens) — yelling “Stop!” I shall have no part of this motley crew. I will go down with the McCain ship. I’d rather lose an election than lose my bearings.

And:

I’ll have no truck with the phony case ginned up to rationalize voting for the most liberal and inexperienced presidential nominee in living memory. The “erratic” temperament issue, for example. As if McCain’s risky and unsuccessful but in no way irrational attempt to tactically maneuver his way through the economic tsunami that came crashing down a month ago renders unfit for office a man who demonstrated the most admirable equanimity and courage in the face of unimaginable pressures as a prisoner of war, and who later steadily navigated innumerable challenges and setbacks, not the least of which was the collapse of his campaign just a year ago.

McCain the “erratic” is a cheap Obama talking point. The 40-year record testifies to McCain the stalwart.

And

McCain’s critics are offended that he raised the issue of William Ayers. What’s astonishing is that Obama was himself not offended by William Ayers.

And

The case for McCain is straightforward. The financial crisis has made us forget, or just blindly deny, how dangerous the world out there is. We have a generations-long struggle with Islamic jihadism. An apocalyptic, soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation. A rising Russia pushing the limits of revanchism. Plus the sure-to-come Falklands-like surprise popping out of nowhere.

Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.?

According to Yahoo! Finance, Nevada is behind only California, Arizona, and Florida in terms of total state budget shortfall.

Nevada’s budget gap is 16% of the total state budget or $1.2 billion.

Nevada has the worst foreclosure rate in the nation, and falling tourism and gambling revenues has slowed the economy dramatically.

A special legislative session in June resulted in budget caps and cuts, but it’s quite likely another special session will have to be called – after the elections in November.

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.

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)

I had the honor of meeting and assisting Pat Toomey last week at the Conservative Leadership Conference here in Las Vegas.  This morning, Club for Growth says/releases the following (excerpted):

Eighteen months into the credit crunch, many largely capitalized financial services firms are experiencing serious difficulties but the overall economy continues to grow.  GDP growth over the past 12 months was 2.25 percent and 3.5 percent when excluding the drag imposed by the housing sector.  Even within the financial sector, many banks are doing well.  Regional bank indices had risen significantly since the lows of last July—prior to the bailout announcement—and thousands of community banks are thriving.  It is extraordinary that a massive government intervention in the economy is considered inevitable when the economy is not even in a recession.

Indeed it is.  On what is the panic of Wall Street types based?  Could it be fear that lack of liquidity and credit in the market will affect their own bank accounts?

At the same time, socializing economic risks come at a great cost to the American economy by misallocating capital, inviting political manipulation, and putting taxpayers on the hook for possibly a trillion dollars.  Such a large takeover by the government will surely be accompanied by adverse, unintended consequences.  Already, other companies and industries are lining up at government’s door asking for their own bailout.  And if the government incurs $700 billion in debt to finance the purchase of bad bank assets, the danger that it will eventually monetize that debt and trigger dramatic inflation is very worrisome.

“Unintended consequences.”  This concept is one of the great underlying tenets of conservative thought.  The idea is that when one makes broad, sweeping changes there are always unplanned effects, and they are often worse than the problem with which you began.

Our Do Nothing Congress should, in this case, do nothing (other than what Newt said yesterday).  We ought to free things up where we can, allow the market to self-correct, and let those who must (and should) take their proverbial Lumps. 

Access to unlimited cash and credit is not a “human right,” and we should stop behaving as if it is.

Since hearing word of widespread support (Paulson, Congress and the President) for the latest, greatest Bailout I’ve been feeling increasingly dejected.  And concerned.  And angry.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has a “plan” which will “shift” $700 billion in obligations from private companies to the American taxpayer.  Apparently he sees this as the only Way and has 9,000 wizards on stand-by to make it so.  (The same Wall Street wizards that got us into this mess, no doubt?)

And evidently most members of Congress are spellbound and preparing to waft more money New York’s way.

One can only imagine what Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (the largest beneficiary of political funds from Fannie & Freddie) will dream up as he joins hands and sings Tra La La La La with Reid and Pelosi.  I’m not sure how it ends, but I’m pretty sure the working title is Nightmare on Wall Street and that we are barely ten minutes in.

Setting the typically wrong-headed Paulson aside for a moment, how is it that Bush and Congress care so little about protecting the American taxpayer?

And why all the insistence on a quick solution?  This mess was not created in a week, yet Paulson and our illustrious Congressional geniuses think they can solve it by this Thursday?  Does it not occur to anyone that we need to take a deep breath, wade in, and calmly and pragmatically work our way through our many economic and financial problems in a careful and measured manner?

As Newt blogged today (thank God for Mr. Gingrich), between the crisis of liquidity on Wall Street, the crisis of bad energy policy that transfers $700 billion a year to foreign nations, the crisis of Sarbanes-Oxley that cripples entrepreneurs/start ups and drives banks and businesses from New York to London, and the crisis of a high corporate tax rate…we are in some very deep Doo Doo.

Newt proposes a ”non-bureaucratic solution that would stop the liquidity crisis almost overnight and do it using private capital rather than taxpayer money.”  He suggests four reforms that would do the trick without the bureaucracy and additional tax burden.  I suggest you read his blog post as it is well worth the time, but in summation they are:

#1  Stop the mark-to-market rule which is forcing companies into unnecessary bankruptcy. If short selling can be suspended on 799 stocks, the mark-to-market rule can be suspended for six months and then replaced with a more accurate three year rolling average mark-to-market. 

#2  Repeal Sarbanes-Oxley. It failed with Freddy, Fannie, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and AIG. It is crippling our entrepreneurial economy. One San Jose firm told Newt they would bring more than 20 companies public in the next year if the law was repealed. It’s Sarbanes-Oxley’s $3 million per startup annual accounting fee that is keeping these companies private.

#3  Go to a zero capital gains tax like China and Singapore.  Private capital will flood into Wall Street (at no cost to Joe Taxpayer) and lead to an increase in federal revenue through a larger, more prosperous economy.

#4  Pass an “all of the above” energy plan designed to bring home $500 billion of the $700 billion a year we are sending overseas. With that much energy income, our economy would boom.

E!! endorses these proposals (a fact I’m sure Newt is happy to hear) and strongly advises against implementation of the Paulson plan which by all reasoned accounts is going to be a total Mess.

In closing, I’ll be waiting to see what McCain says and does about all this.  If he doesn’t reject the Paulson/Bush/Congressional plan and closely align himself with much of what Newt said here, I may not be able to vote for him after all.

(Note:  To those who have heard me joke that I am going to “get drunk and vote for McCain,” consider this my semi-official back-peddle…pending the outcome of this mess and McCain’s stand on things.  Let’s see how Maverick-y the self-proclaimed maverick is when it really counts.) 

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

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

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

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

According to the AP, Bob Loux – head of Nevada’s Nuclear Waste Projects Office (NWPO) – took an ex-employee’s salary and gave it to himself and the rest of his staff in the form of double-digit pay increases. In doing so, Loux exceeded his approved budget and raised his own six-figure salary to over $132,000 a year – significantly more than the earnings of many state department heads.

Assemblyman Morse Arberry said Loux could be thrown in jail because “it’s unlawful for any state officer to do what he’s done.” Speaker Barbara Buckley noted that other state employees have received raises of just 2 percent while pulling double and even triple-duty because of a hiring freeze.

With this attempted swindle by Loux, the NWPO’s days of unsupervised slush-funding may finally be coming to an end. A full agency audit is now to take place.

It has been suggested by some that Loux should “pay back” the money. I agree – but first, he should do the other honorable thing and resign.

You can help by contacting the NWPO directly and urging Mr. Loux to quit, or by demanding that the seven members of the Nevada Commission on Nuclear Projects (Dick Bryan, Susan Brager, Larry Brown, Joan Lambert, Steve Molasky, William Roberts and Paul Workman) give him his walking papers.

Here’s the contact information: nwpo@nuc.state.nv.us or call toll-free: (800) 366-0990.

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.

“Our schools deserve parents’ support” was the scintillating headline of Nevada System of Higher Education chancellor Jim Rogers’ op-ed in the Las Vegas Sun on Tuesday.  Rogers kicks his column off by equating Nevada’s per-pupil funding levels to child abuse and neglect.  (Read it to believe it!)

Rogers then goes on to criticize Nevadans for not paying enough taxes to adequately fund education in Nevada. 

FACT ONE:  Based on U.S. Census data on K-12 spending and doing a little quick math, Nevada spent $8,926 per student in 2006 which, at an average classroom size of, say, 30, works out to $267,780 per classroom year.

FACT TWO:  43% of Nevada’s fourth graders are functionally illiterate, according to the National Assessment in Education Progress reading test.

Even allowing for the 3 to 18% of Nevada’s students who are ELLs (English Language Learners, meaning those who speak only or primarily Spanish) and who naturally cannot be expected to test as fully literate in English, that 43% is a pretty dismal number.

How is it that over a quarter of a million dollars of spending PER CLASSROOM is not enough money to ensure that by fourth grade our students have learned to read with basic competency?

And Rogers wants to lecture the taxpayers about ABUSE and NEGLECT…?

You can reach Rogers by email at chancellor@unlv.edu or call his office at (702) 889-8426.