Elizabeth Crum

According to my KSNV colleague Jon Ralston, Democrats will roll out a proposed tax package next week as the Economic Forum makes its final projections. The upshot is that the Dems — led by Speaker Marilyn Kirkpatrick and Senate Majority Leader Mo Denis — aim to cobble together various adjustments to existing tax structures in order to generate more revenue.

This past week, as we marked the two-thirds point of the legislative session, Senate Minority Leader Michael Roberson and five of his Republican colleagues proposed to generate more revenue to further fund education by levying a $600 million per biennium net proceeds tax on Big Mining. Dubbed the Education Priority Initiative, the plan’s aim is to reduce class sizes by hiring more teachers, fund English Language Learner programs and set up a stabilization fund dedicated to education. The new mining tax would take effect in November 2014, once voters passed SJR 15.

Roberson has said he’s been in contact with Democrats about the Senate GOP proposal, but we’ve not heard much about how those discussions are going.

However, today after the education town hall meeting in Las Vegas, Roberson replied to Tweets calling for more education funding now by Senators Justin Jones (D) and Debbie Smith (D). Here’s the exchange between him and Jones:

@jones4nevada @cceainfo @sendebbiesmith Why not do both? Today and Tomorrow.— Michael Roberson (@SenMRoberson) April 27, 2011 

Are Roberson & Co. willing to agree to some tax increases now in return for Dem support for their proposed mining tax, either as a ballot alternative to the margins tax (which is Roberson’s stated goal) or as a stand-alone law subject to voter approval (which is not Roberson’s hope, but I wonder whether the Senate Six might find it an acceptable Plan B)?

Even if his Plan A is the only possible plan, Roberson’s Tweet signals that he is willing to talk about a deal that includes more revenue this session.

Despite the skepticism I have learned to bring to all conversations about grand bargains at the Legislature, I think a deal is possible. If the Democrats unanimously support one or more tax measures, they only need three Senate Republicans and one Assembly Republican to get to a veto-overriding two-thirds. We already know there are a handful of GOP Senators willing to talk about additional revenue if it is flagged for K-12 education. And much to what will be Assembly Minority Leader Pat Hickey’s chagrin, I’d guess that (at least) one Assembly GOP vote can also be had.

(Helpful note: If things get that far, that one Assembly Republican will have a great deal of power. He/she ought to start thinking about what he/she might want in return. And prepare for at least one visit to The Woodshed, aka Gov. Sandoval’s office, where carrots and/or sticks will be presented.)

Wow.

But is he rattus rattus or rattus norvegicus?

Anyhow, it’s all about this.

And this.

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.