E!!

Dina Titus (D-NV) casts a vote that earns my respect. 

From an article in the WSJ:

A group of Democrats elected in recent years from some of the country’s richest congressional districts have emerged as a stumbling block to raising taxes on the wealthy to pay for President Barack Obama’s ambitious health-care overhaul just as the plan has begun to meet increasing resistance over its cost.

Friday, two freshmen representatives — Dina Titus, from suburban Las Vegas, and Colorado’s Jared Polis, representing Boulder, Vail and some of the tonier suburbs of Denver — joined Republicans to vote against Mr. Obama’s top-priority health-care overhaul when it faced a vote in their House Education and Labor Committee. One reason was a one-percentage point-surtax on couples earning between $350,000 and $500,000 — gradually increasing to 5.4 percentage points on earnings more than $1 million — to pay for it.

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.

My friend Melissa Clouthier has some good advice for the Tea Party folks, present and future.

I admit I’ve been a little ambivalent about the upcoming Las Vegas Tea parties (July 3rd or 4th depending on which you choose).  The one on April 15 was great fun, and I made some friends and gained new contacts – but I’ve wondered since then, what really came of it?  And what’s next?

Ralph Benko has a suggestion in his latest Examiner column, and I kinda like it.  As they say, “Go big or stay home.”  Or – and I happen to know this is one of Ralph’s favorite quotes - ”Lost causes are the only ones worth fighing for.”  (Clarence Darrow) 

Here’s the core of the piece:

There are plenty of targets for the tea parties. Most ambitious is the call for repeal of the 16th Amendment — the income tax amendment.

A declaration is circulating on the Internet pointing out that July 12 is the Centenary of Congress’s passage of the 16th Amendment and proclaiming a National Day of Mourning coupled with a demand for repeal. The key proponent of the demand for Repeal is John Hanson, an old Cajun chased out of Louisiana by Katrina and resettled in rural Virginia.

With no money to speak of, little exposure, and just a handful of very part time volunteers, he is using www.RepealIncomeTax.com to enlist thousands of signers of the declaration demanding repeal. On July 12th, Hanson will start a three-year campaign to raise awareness of the issue in the states.

Before all we roll our eyes and say, “yeah, like that’s gonna happen,” Ralph reminds us that the 18th Amendment – Prohibition- was repealed after a concentrated national outcry. No constitutional amendment had ever been repealed before and many naysayers laughed at that one, too.  Notably, the income tax has something in common with prohibition:   it is starting to be hated with a passion.

A movement for repeal, if not succesful, could perhaps at least spur major reform.  A welcome thing indeed, and what a wild wonder if the Tea Party Movement could one day point back and say, “We helped do That!”

I was unable to attend, but Chuck Muth gives us the details of the special meeting of the Clark County Republican Central Committee last night.  We agreed in advance it would probably be a circus.  But Chuck says it was all business:  ”serious, thoughtful and orderly.”

The main purpose of the controversial meeting was to consider and vote on a resolution censuring the Republican state legislators who voted for this session’s higher taxes. Here’s the text of the resolution:

Whereas, Clark County, Nevada is already burdened with high unemployment and a sagging business economy; and,

Whereas, the platform of the Clark County Republican Party is clear in its opposition to new taxes; and,

Whereas, raising taxes is extremely poor public policy for Nevada’s people and it’s economy; and,

Whereas, the Nevada Republican Party as a whole, and every Chairman of every Nevada County Central Committee has signed a resolution urging it’s elected legislators to vote against raising new taxes; and,

Whereas, the political damage caused to the Republican Party brand name from Republican officeholders who support higher taxes is tremendous; and,

Whereas the Clark County, Nevada Republican Party has a responsibility to make it clear that individual legislators who are registered as Republicans who voted for tax increases did so in disregard for and in opposition to their own political party; therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED by the Clark County, Nevada Republican Party that for their votes in support of raising taxes in SB 429, we censure the following registered Republican legislators:

Republican Senators:
Dennis Nolan
Warren Hardy
William Raggio
Dean Rhoads
Randolph Townsend

Republican Assemblymen:
John Carpenter

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the members of the Clark County Nevada Republican Party urge the Republican Party Central Committee, or any other official party entity from giving any assistance of any kind to those legislators listed above.

Chuck said a few people spoke against the resolution, on the grounds that it would hurt the party to appear fractured. But those speaking in favor pointed out that the harm done to the party by Republican legislators voting for this tax hike was far more harmful - and that something had to be said about it.

The resolution passed OVERWHELMINGLY. Says Chuck:  “The “yeas” were thunderous; the “nays” were barely audible whispers.”

And so it is that the party folks in Clark County took a major step toward reclaiming the GOP from the ”moderate” legislative leadership.

May all Nevada’s other counties follow suit.  So let it be written, so let it be done.

Yeah, I know what I said, but tomorrow ran a bit long. And right now it’s late and I’m really too tired to wax blogetic.  But I’ll give you a few interesting items to read:

– Gun Owners of Nevada SB-52 alert here. Raggio and Gansert’s contact numbers are conveniently provided.

– A moderate Democrat displeased with the leftward lurch of the Obama White House writes to the Las Vegas Sun here.

– On Friday, Carson City protestors protested about the state budget here.  The state Assembly overrode the governor’s veto so we now have a $6.9m budget and a $781 million tax increase to fund it.  (Gov. Gibbons’ proposed $6.2 billion budget, which legislators rejected, included a $220 million voter-approved room tax increase.) Me, I reject BOTH budgets as more than was needed – and more than Nevada can afford.

– If the facts are as represented, it seems a mistrial and re-trial for an Army Ranger would be in order here.  Personally, I don’t care if he shot the Al Quada operative while he was just sitting on the rock.  Why are we politely escorting known terrorists around anyway…?

– A seemingly worthy non-partisan breast cancer initiative petition is here. It urges Congress to pass legislation to end the practice of so-called “drive-through” mastectomies in which women are forced out of the hospital only hours after invasive breast cancer surgery.  Hours...?

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.