E!!

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.

Vis a vis my Spreading the Wealth post and the differences between Sebelius and I on who-should-vote-how-and-why, I was delighted to run across this piece from Jonah Goldberg.  I quote:

Another example of a tactic masquerading as a principle is contemporary liberalism’s fixation with the idea that the working and middle class should “vote their interests,” by which they mean vote for the most government goodies. This was the point of Obama’s “bitter” and “clinging” comments last summer. Those poor deluded souls in western Pennsylvania don’t understand that their real interests lie with Obama’s economic agenda.

For all the liberal protests claiming that Obama’s “bitter” comments were misunderstood, his remarks were, in fact, mainstream on the Left. For instance, Thomas Frank, something of a guru to angry liberals, wrote in his book What’s the Matter with Kansas? that, “People getting their fundamental interests wrong is what American political life is all about. This species of derangement is the bedrock of our civic order; it is the foundation on which all else rests.” And, he added at great length, it is the reason so many deluded working- and middle-class Americans vote Republican (or at least why so many did when Frank wrote his book).

This has always struck me as hypocritical, pernicious lunacy. Legitimate election issues are those issues voters decide are legitimate. Americans who cling to religion and guns don’t do so out of bitterness, but because they consider such things central to their understanding of the good life and resent what they perceive as hostility to their lifestyle from their own government. And no liberal opposes voting on values issues — including gay rights — when they think they’re right or if they believe it helps get liberals elected. Liberals denounce rich people who vote their interests as “greedy” and celebrate limousine liberals who vote against their own interests as heroes.

I was interested to see Jonah’s mention of Thomas Frank’s book because I linked up to it in my earlier post (because Steve Sebelius mentioned it the other day on KNPR when making his point).  As soon as WTMWKansas was invoked, I shook my head and knew right where we were headed.  Guys like Frank think conservative Heartland voters are too dumb, deluded, or simple to vote the “right” way.  Right being to say Yes to higher taxes on the wealthy and Yes to more breaks and government handouts for themselves.

Frank & Co. cannot comprehend why some poor sap would rather live poor on what he legitimately earns and dutifully pay his fair share of taxes than get a pass or take a handout from his fellow (richer) taxpayers.  They insist on shoving their leftist But-We-Are-Here-to-Help-You agenda down poor Kansas Man’s throat – and delight in calling him dumb when he spits it out.

A reader emails:

Is it possible that by “freeing” the poor from paying any tax at all, they are, in essence, being completely disenfranchised?  That they do not care where the tax money goes because it doesn’t come out of their pockets?  That not being required to pay taxes sends the subtle message that they are inferior?  Thus perpetuating the victim and “gimme gimme” mentality?

I’ve often wondered whether even the poorest among us should pay some taxes in order to keep them in the game, so to speak.

Keep in mind that the poorest citizens not only pay no taxes but receive income “credits” from the government (i.e. our taxpayer dollars).  A mother earning minimum wage ($13,624 annually) with one dependent child taking the standard deduction not only owes “0″ tax, she also gets a check for $3,850 through the Earned Income Credit and Child Tax Credit.  And with two children that number jumps to $6,710, so at year end she has “earned” $20,334 in combined income and credits while having contributed nothing to the tax base (though her employer has paid some payroll tax).

.

Wednesday morning during our KNPR panel discussion, LV City Life editor Steve Sebelius ridiculed the anti-socialist sentiments of Joe the Plumber and reminded listeners that America already “spreads the wealth around” via our existing social democracy and graduated tax system.  Steve also commented on the strange (to him) fact that Heartland voters like Joe will often self-defeatingly vote “against their own self interest” by opposing tax increases on hgher income famlies that would enable tax cuts for themselves and/or the funding of entitlement programs that would benefit them.

It seems that Steve and others of like mind have trouble understanding a man who votes based on principle – even if that principle might not benefit him immediately and/or directly.

So:  is Joe the Plumber, who one day hopes to own his own business and does not want to be taxed to death when he does, a big dummy for voting against the candidate who promised him a tax cut based on his present income?  He’s recently answered questions about this, as well as his general opposition to wealth redistribution, and here is the gist of what he said:

He understands that he’s earning less than $100K right now and that Obama’s tax plan would therefore benefit him in the short term.  But he also believes Obama’s tax plan and health care mandate will make it more difficult for him to succeed in the future (i.e. to start and then profit from a small business).  Joe says he is content to pay his taxes, if they are fair and reasonable.  He is willing to work hard and wants to earn his future wealth.  He does not want special breaks or handouts that he knows come out of another man’s pocket.  He does not want to pay less in taxes so another man has to pay more, and he does not want to be the man who someday pays more while others pay far less.  He believes that lower taxes on businesses create jobs, which benefits everyone (because companies that make money will generally invest profits and expand).

But yesterday Jonah Goldberg echoed Sebelius in reminding us that whatever our principles and ideals, the U.S. is a social democracy with a progressive, redistributionist tax system.  Our poorest citizens pay somewhere between 0 and 10 percent in federal income tax; the middle class pays 15 to 28 percent; and the highest earners pay 33 or 35 percent.  He writes:

A new study by the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development reveals that the United States “has the most progressive tax system and collects the largest share of taxes from the richest 10 percent of the population.” Our tax system is, in fact, the most “pro-poor,” according to a Tax Foundation analysis of that study, of any developed country’s save Ireland. That’s right, we’re more progressive than France and Sweden.

The bottom 40 percent of income earners receive more from the federal income tax system than they pay into it. Meanwhile, the top 10 percent pay 71 percent of all income tax, despite only earning 39 percent of our pretax income. Taxes on the top 1 percent constitute 40 percent of tax dollars.

So here’s my question:  Is sweeping tax reform a necessary part of a truly conservative agenda and should we therefore be pushing for a flat (or flatter) tax system?  Or are we resigned to things as they are and content to squabble over the difference between 35 and 39%? 

.

Update:  Steve Sebelius emails with the following:

Actually, if you listen to the [KNKPR] tape again, you’ll see I went out of my way to make it clear that IF a voter considers his own economic self-interest a factor, then a voter of Joe the Plumber’s situation would have voted for Obama. I did not necessarily endorse using one’s own economic situation as a guide to voting; surely, plenty of very wealthy people who would be taxed more heavily voted for Obama, and plenty of less well-off people voted for McCain. I don’t condemn them for voting on principle, and made that clear on the show.  

Me:  I guess I’ll have to listen to the tape.  My impression in the moment was that Steve said guys like Joe are foolish and/or unintelligent and/or wrong for not voting in their own immediate economic self interest. 

Update 2:  Steve’s exact words were:  “There are people voting the wrong way by not voting their economic interests.” 

At least in that sentence, Steve was priveleging present economic interests over other factors, and indicating that voters (who don’t see it that way) are making a mistake.

However, Steve also says that the rich people who voted for Obama were voting against their own economic interest, and it was “the right thing to do.”

So, if someone like Joe votes against his own economic interest with a conservative/Republican vote, he’s voting wrong; but if a rich person votes against his own economic interest with a liberal/Democrat vote, he’s voting right…?

???

Read about it here on Boston.com.

Nevada state senator Bob Beer’s campaign office has been located at 6822 W. Cheyenne Ave., Las Vegas, NV for the last six months or so.  He says that a couple of weeks ago, two doors down, an Obama campaign office opened.  Beers’ staffers thought maybe Obama had adopted a new slogan, but it turns out the previous tenant prepared tax returns and the Obama people neglected to take down the old sign:

Cliff May had a goodie the other day.  And it’s been nagging at me ever since.  The gist is this:

We all know that taxation without representation is a form of tyranny. But as so many have been saying lately, roughly 40% of Americans today don’t pay income taxes.

So, what if in the next administration that number rises to 51% or more?

At that point, the majority of Americans - who would not be paying any taxes – could and would elect leaders who could and would decide how much the tax paying minority would have to remit to the government.

That money could and would then be redistributed to the non-taxpaying majority through government programs and services.

A majority of Americans would then enjoy representation without taxation, and Voila, we have The Tyranny of the Non Taxayers.

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the support of Paul. – George Bernard Shaw

.

From Americans for Tax Reform

Five Things You Might Not Know About Obama’s Small Business Tax Hikes

WASHINGTON, DC— Americans for Tax Reform today released the following “top five” facts related to the Obama tax hike on small businesses:

1.        Two-thirds of small business profits are earned in households making more than $250,000 per year—the very households Obama is shouting from the rooftops that he will raise taxes on (Source: IRS Statistics of Income Bulletin*).  Small business profits are used to create jobs and invest in America .  This is the answer to the Obama campaign’s irrelevant claim that the number of small businesses affected will be small—the fact is that the bulk of profits will face a tax hike. 

2.      Small businesses pay income taxes at the household level.  This means that the Obama plan to raise tax rates is a direct tax hike on small businesses—sole proprietorships, partnerships, S-corporations, and family farms.

3.       The tax rate on the lion’s share of small business income could reach 54.9 percent under a President Obama (the individual top rate will climb from 35 percent to 39.6 percent and the Social Security/Medicare tax rate could climb from 2.9 percent to 15.3 percent.  Put those together, and you get 54.9 percent) (Source: www.barackobama.com)

4.      This 54.9 percent tax rate would be the highest since the Carter Administration, when America suffered through double-digit inflation and unemployment (Source: Congressional Budget Office)

5.       America’s 26 million small businesses employers give a paycheck to 116 million employees (Source: Census Bureau).  When small business taxes go up, millions of these employees will be at risk of being laid off.

“Obama’s tax increases will only affect you if you have a 401(k), have any savings, buy things from small businesses or are looking for a job,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.  “If you fall into one of these categories, his policies will screw you.  Otherwise, you’re fine.”

* “Small business profits” is equal to the net profits less net losses of sole proprietors, S-corporation shareholders, and partners.  According to the IRS, two-thirds of these small business profits are earned in households with adjusted gross income (AGI) equal to or greater than $200,000.  In 2006, $473 billion of the $706 billion (two-thirds) of small business profits was earned in households Obama has said he would raise tax rates on.

This post on the values of capitalism over on Overcoming Bias is just excellent.

It starts with this quote:

“The financial crisis is not the crisis of capitalism.  It is the crisis of a system that has distanced itself from the most fundamental values of capitalism, which betrayed the spirit of capitalism.”
        — Nicolas Sarkozy

and includes gems like:

The fundamental morality of capitalism lies in the voluntary nature of its trades, consented to by all parties, and therefore providing a gain to all.

and

Vigorous work is praiseworthy but should be accompanied by equally vigorous results.

and

No one has a right to their job.  Not the janitor, not the CEO, no one.  It would be like a rationalist having a right to their own opinion.  At some point you’ve got to fire the saddle-makers and close down the industry. 

and

No company has a right to its continued existence.  Change happens.

and

A high standard of living is the just reward of hard work and intelligence.  If other people or other places have lower standards of living, then the problem is the lower standard, not the higher one.  Raise others up, don’t lower yourself.  A high standard of living is a good thing, not a bad one – a universal moral generalization that includes you in particular.  If you’ve earned your wealth honestly, enjoy it without regrets.

and

People safeguard, nourish, and improve that which they know will not be taken away from them.  Tax a little if you must, but at some point you must let people own what they buy.

and

In countries that are lawful and just, the government is the referee, not a player.  If the referee runs onto the field and kicks the football, things are starting to get scary.

and

Making money is a virtuous endeavor, despite all the lies that have been told about it, and should properly be found in the company of other virtues.  Those who set out to make money should not think of themselves as fallen, but should rather conduct themselves with honor, pride, and self-respect, as part of the grand pageantry of human civilization rising up from the dirt, and continuing forward into the future.

Amen!

Apparently the peeps back in Massachusetts are considering getting rid of the state income tax.

Didn’t believe it myself until I read this (very biased) Globe piece which confirms that Question 1 is indeed on the ballot, that it would completely abolish the state income tax, and that the last time around (2002) the measure got 45% of the vote.

If approved, the state income tax would be cut from 5.3 to 2.65 percent on Jan. 1, 2009 and then be abolished a year later.

The usual suspects are opposed to the measure, citing concerns about the loss of tax revenue and the subsequent “catastrophic” cuts to “needed” services.  

Taxaholics always warn of the rapid decline of schools, roads, and public safety if voters dare to abolish taxes.  They paint a dire picture of social disintegration:  your kids will suddenly become uneducated boobs; you’ll have to drive a covered wagon to work on a dirt road; and your town will be plundered by Viking marauders.

Or, as supporters of the measure say, Beacon Hill will be forced to find more efficient ways to achieve what really matters and cut unnecessary spending. 

Currently, seven states manage to avoid sliding into total anarchy while imposing no income tax:  Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming.  Additionally, New Hampshire and Tennessee limit their state income taxes to dividends and interest income only.

(Hat Tip on Question 1:  My friends at the Americans for Tax Reform blog)

The sky’s been falling on Wall Street, and now hell is officially freezing over: Harry Reid is defending the same tax cuts that he once opposed and blasted as being “for the rich.”

So says Susan Jones of CNS News, who is reporting on the Senate debates of the “rescue bill” (still an Obama-ism, still smacks of false victimology, still hate it).

In an attempt to grease the Senate wheels on this bill, Reid now says he supports an Alternative Minimum Tax relief: $8 billion for natural disaster victims, and $78 billion in renewable energy incentives and extended tax breaks.

Reid’s commentary included statements like “we’ve got to get this done” and “it would be a blight on this Congress not to pass these tax extenders” and “tens of thousands of jobs will be created.”

How wonderful that liberal Democrat Harry Reid has finally admitted that tax cuts help businesses and create middle class jobs.

Pigs, commence flight.

Update:  George reminds us that Obama had a revelation on taxation also:  when he said that as president he would delay rolling back the Bush tax cuts if the economy was weak…essentially acknowledging that tax hikes hurt the economy.

If there’s one thing I’ve learned from blogging and receiving tons of email, we all have our “pet” electoral issues and hot buttons – and they vary widely from person to person.  For me, it’s national security first; the economy (and tax policy) second; and energy policy (a closely related) third.

On the subject of the economy, Jack Kemp has a good op-ed on the presidential candidates and their proposed tax plans (thanks to Mike Davis at the NV RLC for bringing it to my attention).  I strongly encourage voters to read the whole thing, but here are some key points (summarized in my own words):

Barack Obama says he supports a tax cut in the form of a $500 refundable income tax credit for all workers (except those in the top 5 percent of income earners, who will pay more taxes) “unless the economy remains weak.”  So…Obama does recognize that tax increases on the rich have a negative effect on the overall economy.  (But why does he think that matters only in “weak” economic times?)

Obama’s tax credit does not reduce marginal tax rates, so it won’t benefit the general economy because it provides no long term (additional) incentives for work, savings, investment or business expansion.  (People will get their $500 refund check, spend it, and that will be That.)

On the other hand, McCain wants to double the personal exemption for dependents from $3,500 to $7,000 for families regardless of income.  (For middle-class workers in the 25% tax bracket, the $3,500 exemption increase would reduce their tax liability by $875 for each child.  Families with three children are thus looking at $2,600+ in tax savings.)

And McCain proposes marginal tax rate reductions – which is great news in country that pays the second highest corporate tax rates in the entire industrialized world.  McCain wants to reduce the federal corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent – a boon for middle class workers in the form of new jobs, better pay, and a stronger dollar.

And all this will most likely raise rather than reduce tax revenues.  (Why?  Kemp cites a 2007 study by the Treasury Department which showed that Ireland — with a 12.5% corporate tax rate — raises just shy of 50 percent more revenue on a comparative basis than the U.S. does with a 35 percent rate!)

McCain would also keep the top capital gains tax rate and dividend tax at 15% which is needed in the stock world (stocks are now held by more than 2/3rds of all Americans).  McCain further wants to phase out the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) which burdens 25 million middle-class families with another $2,700 in taxes each year (on average).

Obama, by contrast, has proposed to raise marginal tax rates for almost every federal tax — the individual income tax, the capital gains tax, the dividends tax, the payroll tax, the death tax, etc. and he would increase corporate taxes where and when he could.

McCain’s plan is a good start, but I agree with Kemp:  we need to promote additional middle-class tax cuts through fundamental reform of our “confusing, contradictory and confiscatory tax code.”

Kemp outlines a proposal by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis. to allow workers to choose a flatter tax system (which is also worth reading about, at the end of his op-ed). 

Had a good conversation with a conservative friend this weekend re: government spending and Republican Rep. Jon Porter’s apparent affinity for it (despite his claims to the contrary – especially, my friend noted, when he is looking for campaign contributions).

This convo occured before I read Jon Ralston’s column in the Las Vegas Sun yesterday, in which he noted that although Porter has a new ad slamming Democrat challenger and former state senator Dina Titus for voting for the largest tax hike in Nevada’s history back in 2003 - which she did – Porter likely would have voted for it, too.

In light of Jon Porter’s record of voting for pork bills in Congress, including this year’s scandalous Farm Bill, Ralston’s assumption is fair.

Does Jon Porter really think he can sell himself as a fiscal conservative at this point?  And even if he tries, why on earth would we believe him?

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

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

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

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

Last night in his interview with Bill O’Reilly, Obama said:

“If I am sitting pretty, and you’ve got a waitress who is making minimum wage plus tips, and I can afford it and she can’t — what’s the big deal for me to say, ‘I’m going to pay a little bit more.’ That is neighborliness.”

Well, Senator Obama, it WOULD BE neighborliness if you were doing it VOLUNTARILY, i.e. if free will were involved.

However, if the amount you pay is decided by the federal government, collected by the federal government, and distributed where and whence the federal government sees fit, and if you resent the hell out of it (as I do), then the act is NOT neighborliness but state-mandated SOCIALISM, otherwise known as the forcible redistribution of wealth, otherwise known as highway robbery by the Nanny State bandits of the world.

(I was pleased when O’Reilly called him “Robin Hood Obama.”)

This Eric O’Keefe blog/op-ed is for my Michigan readers (of whom there are a few).  It’s also worthy of note for anyone concerned with combatting massive tax hikes, the freedom of citizens in recall processes/petitions, and blatant media bias. 

The Free Press’s position is passing strange considering it’s been 25 years since the last legislative recall in Michigan.  And I agree with O’Keefe’s closing:

The Free Press is good at covering the Tigers and Red Wings. It should stick to covering sports, the weather, and the continuing decline of Michigan’s over-taxed economy.

One of my NV business owner pals just forwarded me her recent email exchange with Nevada State Senator Dennis Nolan.  It’s worth sharing especially since Nolan’s advice to her (and anyone who agrees with her) was to leave the state.  Way to persuade your critics and strengthen Nevada, Senator Nolan!

P:  The reason people don’t get Nevada plates is that they are the highest in the country. Hey, Earth to Nolan! You can CHOOSE your state of residency. You can set up an LLC or company in another state. All of these are perfectly legal ways to have plates from other states. Want people to register here? Cut the fees down and they will register!!! DUH!

Senator Nolan:  If they like paying to register in another state and let the rest of us pay for roads and highways, then they should live in the other state! DUH!

P:  Because people can have more than one house or an RV which is deductible as a house! DUH! Last time I looked half of it went to the overbloated worthless school system stuffed with illegals that you refuse to do anything about! DUH! WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE ROADS? WITH THE WAY THIS STATE IS GETTING CALIFORNICATED THERE WILL BE LOTS OF PEOPLE LEAVING!  READ IT AND WEEP! http://wyomingcompany.com/ 

$500 to set up a Wyoming LLC, cheap plates, no business tax and no Nevada stigma! and no Rhinos! That single move alone would save me $3,800 a year in plates for a 1999 car ($500), a 2001 car ($650), and a 2003 motor home ($1,800) which is never there! And when it is, it’s parked!!!! Tell me, why should I keep paying license plate fees in Nevada?????? It’s a NO BRAINER!

Senator Nolan:  Your Right! and in your case I think the move would be a prudent and in the State’s best interest!

(E!! Note:  The word “your” is not the same as the contraction “you’re” meaning you are.  Dare I speculate that Nolan attended public school in Nevada?)

P:  I’m sure there are plenty more people that would rather see you go. Shall we make a list???

Senator Nolan:  You’re probably right! No, don’t worry,  I’ve already started a list.  Hey, I really do appreciate your concern and  involvement despite our differences.  Have a good week.

(Having calmed down, Nolan realizes that shouting “DUH!” and advising unhappy citizens to leave the state is probably not a good strategy…or very Senatorial, either.)

P:  Truce, for now. If you really want to do something to help the economy, support cutting the school fees out of the budget and allowing for licensing your cars based on what they are actually worth, not some inflated retail price.  We pay $1,800 a year for license plates for a 5 year old motorhome. We RV outside of Nevada 10 months a year. When it’s in Las Vegas it’s parked. Now tell me why I should pay that kind of money to the state?

I can license in Wyoming or Montana (no sales tax either) by purchasing an LLC. I haven’t yet, but I’m going to. You can be a citizen of anywhere now by buying an LLC or Corp. Why is Nevada driving business and fees out of Nevada? Wyoming is actively seeking what would be Nevada businesses. I would love to see some numbers on how much the LLC business has dropped in Nevada since 2003, and the big tax and fee hikes.

The threat of a business tax being espoused by Rogers and Buckley are forcing people to look elsewhere. It is perfectly legal and smart to lower your taxes legally. It would be in Nevada’s best interest to change these 2 anti-business, anti-consumer things that are patently unfair. It would cut the cost of plates in half, and I bet alot more people would buy their plates here.

By the way, I am also a small business owner, Internet. It would be very easy for me to move my business to Wyoming. In fact I’m setting up a second LLC in Wyoming this next week as a precaution against a potential business tax. How many other businesses are doing or will do the same thing?

It’s a world economy now. State governments should realize that. Make it attractive for small businesses to be here or they will stop coming. Have a nice evening.

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.

“When examined as a whole, I find it impossible to believe that there is simply no way to reduce spending within the system of higher education. . . . The system of higher education currently employs 1,328 people who are paid $100,000 or more annually.”

- Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons, 8/20/08

“The top 452 (university system employees)…all make more than the governor, who receives $140,000 a year.  The highest paid university system employee is [Dr. William Zamboni, head of the School of Medicine's surgery department] who receives $1.4 million a year in compensation not counting health and retirement benefits.”

- Nevada Appeal, 8/21/08

This morning on the drive to work, I heard Heidi Harris say (on talk radio KXNT) that Obama will be opening four more campaign offices in Las Vegas this week.  Not surprising now that McCain has a slight edge in the polls.

The good news for the Dems is their voter registration edge of about 60,000, many of whom were signed up by the Obama campaign in recent months.  In addition, the Las Vegas Sun reports that the Dems have trained 600 new precinct leaders in addition to the 1,000+ who were trained for the caucuses.

The bad news for Obama is that he has to overcome the senate’s most liberal voting record in a state that is unwaveringly pro-gun and has a deep aversion to tax hikes.  He’s also got a problem in re: to energy because the majority of Nevadans – in both parties – support creating more energy (drill, drill, drill) vs. cutting consumption.

The question is:  will those extra voter registrations and the opening of these new campaign offices make a difference for Obama in November – and should the NV GOP follow suit?

Republicans tend to be more reliable voters, so the GOP doesn’t always have to work as hard to get their peeps to the polls.  With numbers this close, though, McCain’s people may want to take a page from the 2004 Bush-Cheney playbook.  The Republican ground operation in Nevada was huge and Kerry was defeated by 21,500 votes.

Not sure that’s going to happen, though.  The McCain campaign seems to be focusing more on Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan — states with larger numbers of electoral votes than Nevada – I guess thinking that if they can win 2 out of 3, they can win the whole enchilada.

Obama seems to be taking a different approach:  grabbing enough (other) Bush states such that losses in the big Midwestern states won’t mean as much.  Clearly, Nevada is one he wants in the bag.

I missed posting at noon-ish today; it’s been a long, hard sun cycle; and my creative juices are dry.  So, I’m going to do what all great bloggers do and post someone else’s clever riff in order to fill blogspace.  This is from Chuck Muth’s News & Views:

DO YOU, MR. CANDIDATE, TAKE MS. VOTER…?

I ran into another [Nevada] Republican candidate today who has yet to sign the Taxpayer Protection Pledge.  His objection is one I hear quite often from candidates who simply don’t want to take a firm position on a critically important philosophical, as well as fiscal, issue. “I’ve learned over the years never to say never,” this candidate told me this afternoon.

Really?  I wonder exactly when he learned that lesson?

I suppose it was sometime AFTER promising Mrs. Candidate on their wedding day that he was taking her “to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, forsaking all others, ’til death do us part.”

I mean, if your philosophy is to “never say never,” then shouldn’t those old marriage vows be made a bit more flexible?  I mean, shouldn’t we take out the part about “til death do us part” and insert some kind of escape clause which acknowledges that when it comes to being faithful, “everything is on the table”? I mean, it’s just not right to never say never, right?

You see, when you really, really, really, really, REALLY believe in something at the very core of your being, it’s not hard to say “never.”  Then again, if you really, really, really, really, really DON’T believe that raising taxes is a bad thing, then you come up with all kinds of excuses for not making such a firm promise.

So, Mr. & Mrs. Taxpayer, when a candidate who refuses to give you a firm promise not to raise your taxes comes to you asking for your vote, remember…it’s just a one-night stand.  There’s no commitment involved.  Just hope he or she at least leaves you enough money for cab fare home.

If you don’t live in Nevada or D.C. then you haven’t seen this new targeted ad slam against Harry Reid by the newly formed American Future Fund.

The ad quotes Reid:  “Coal makes us sick; oil makes us sick.  Global warming is ruining our country; it’s ruining our world…” and then informs viewers, “Reid says ‘no’ to energy exploration in Alaska and off our coasts and ‘no’ to the safe development of our massive oil shale reserves.  Reid says ‘yes’ to higher energy taxes that consumers will end up paying.

Call Harry Reid at 202-224-3542.  Tell him to allow the Senate to vote on S. 3202 – and drill for oil right here, right now.”

You can view AFFs’ seven-point energy plan (which also plays the Reid ad when the page first loads) here and if you wish, sign their petition here. 

Curious after seeing an AFF ”Drill Here, Drill Now” bumper sticker over the weekend, I contacted them.  Their director of communications, Tim Albrecht, told me they were founded earlier this year as a 501(c)(4) corporation.  They are located in Des Moines and advocate for conservative, free-market issues.  (And since AFF only paid to have the ad run in NV and DC, I’m sure Tim would appreciate it if you’d do them the favor of passing on the link!) 

As reported by the Nevada Appeal here, about 90,500 Nevadans were out of work in June.  Our unemployment rate climbed to 6.4 percent - the highest level in more than 14 years.

Though this is bad for many residents of the state, it may be good news for Conservatives who worry that Nevada may turn Blue on this November’s electoral map.  As jobs stay scarce, businesses struggle to make payroll, and gas prices stay high, fiscal conservatism – including the desire for balanced budgets and lower taxes - will (should!) sieze the hearts and minds of those who might otherwise swing Left in both the state and national elections this fall…IF conservative candidates can convince constituents they stand for these values.

From the website Americans for Tax Reform: 

Cost of Government Day (COGD) is the date of the calendar year on which the average American worker has earned enough gross income to pay off his or her share of spending and regulatory burdens imposed by government on the federal, state and local levels.

Cost of Government Day for 2008 is July 16.  Working people must toil on average 197 days out of the year just to meet all costs imposed by government.  In other words, the cost of government consumes 53.9 percent of national income.

How about some suggestions for how we can all celebrate the Day we stop feeding our income to the Insatiable Monster that is Government?  Talk sarcastically amongst yourselves and report back.

You read the header right, folks.  A few Nevada Republicans are saying the call to choose between signing the Taxpayer Protection Pledge or facing the impending phone blitz by Citizen Outreach is “extortion.” 

If Chuck Muth were a Mob Boss threatening them with life and limb, I might sympathize – but this ain’t the Sopranos…so as the kids are saying these days, “Save the Drama for Your Mama.”

The only body parts at risk for these Reps are the butts that grace their legislative seats, and that is exactly as it should be.  It is the proper role of citizen-activists to help keep the public informed and make sure elected officials are held accountable at the polls.  This is not extortion; it’s our electoral process at work.

Assemblypersons and hopeful candidates who have not yet signed the Pledge should seriously consider doing so.  You can then fax the signed copy to Citizen Outreach at (775) 522-3925.

The venerable and incorrigible Grand Imperial Tax-Hating Pooh-Bah of Nevada – a.k.a. my favorite Libertarian, Chuck Muth – is busy mobilizing resources over at Citizen Outreach as they gear up for what I’m affectionately calling Operation Saturation. 

Muth says the voter districts of Republicans who refuse to sign the Taxpayer Protection Pledge by this weekend will be flooded with automated phone messages.  The 30-second missives will notify constituents that their candidate won’t promise not to raise taxes and will advise them to demand explanations when he/she comes a-knockin’ for their votes in November.

For those of you not tracking issues in the Battle Born state, we are facing a financial crisis.  A bi-partisan panel recently projected a 2009 budget shortfall of $248 million.  Some are disputing that number, but it can’t be denied that revenues are going to fall far short of expenditures.  In search of solutions, Governor Jim Gibbons has scheduled a special congressional session to convene this Friday.  The usual suspects are calling for the usual tax increases; the conservatives are crusading for spending cuts; and the war wages on. 

Gibbons is honoring his 2006 promise to voters and refusing to support any tax hike, but the Legislature could override his veto and pass an increase – IF Democrats can rally enough Republicans and collect the 2/3 vote needed.  None of us can be sure of the outcome as long as so many Republican officials remain undeclared. 

Happily, Citizen Outreach has provided a list of incumbent Assembly Republicans and GOP Candidates who have not yet signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge.  I’ve taken the liberty of adding links to contact info for each person.  I strongly encourage Nevadans to take action by contacting these folks and letting them know your vote depends on their promise to oppose new or increased taxes. 

If Speaker Barbara Buckley and the Democrats want to pass a tax hike, let them do it with NO Republican votes – and then just try to hold on to their Seats in the next election.

Assembly Minority Leader Heidi Gansert
Assemblywoman Francis Allen
Assemblyman Joe Hardy
Assemblyman Tom Grady
Assemblyman Pete Goicoechea

Assembly candidate Sean Fellows
Assembly candidate Cheryl Lau (pending further search!)
Assembly candidate Donna Toussaint
Assembly candidate John Gwaltney (scroll down to #8) 
Assembly candidate Melissa Woodbury