A Plan for Nevada: Follow PLAN's Actions

As reported by Write On Nevada, the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada (PLAN), one of the most prominent advocates for increasing taxes in the state rather than cutting spending, when faced with its own budget shortfall chose to "cut our budget by 20 percent through a combination of staff layoffs, reduction in hours, and voluntary pay cuts." A much different solution when talking about their own money than when they're talking about yours.

More Government Waste As Government Demands More Money

Another day, another revelation of government waste in the state of Nevada. The Nevada legislature gets set to convene today with the budget debate promising to take center stage. A steady stream of public employees, union members, students and other recipients of taxpayer funds has been paraded in front of the public and the legislators promising impending doom if the proposed budget cuts are adopted. At the same time there has also been a continuing stream of reports indicating that some of our public servants have been less than diligent stewards of the taxpayers' money.

This time, the Review-Journal has obtained documents through an open records request revealing, among other things, current and former state workers were paid higher rates for part-time work than for similar full-time duties they performed as part of their regular jobs. The R-J's request came in the wake of an audit that found anomalies in billing and contracts with state employees who had also been hired as consultants.

At least one contractor billed for 25 hours' work in one day, according to the audit. It also mentioned that some state agencies had no system to assure that their employees, who held contracts to work for other state agencies on their own time, were not doing it on the clock at their regular jobs.

State Sen. Sheila Leslie, D-Reno, asked that the report be turned over to the Nevada attorney general for possible criminal prosecution of contract cheaters.

As with most of the other recent stories of waste, the amounts in this particular case are relatively small when considered in the context of a budget exceeding $5 billion. But, to paraphrase the old saying, a million here a million there and pretty soon you're talking about real money. And, when even Dan Klaich, chancellor of the Nevada System of Higher Education, has been forced to admit that he and his colleagues have cried wolf regarding the effect of proposed budget cuts in the past, residents of the state are justified in taking the gloom-and-doom predictions with a huge grain of salt.

The private-sector workers and businesses whose sweat and toil are the source of funds for the public sector have already suffered cuts and losses far greater than anything proposed for the government and its employees. They have been doing with less for a long time. And with each revelation that the government has not been responsible with the money it has already been given they have every right to demand that government do with less instead of increasing the burden on the businesses and families who have already suffered the brunt of this recession.

Cross-posted at NBC.

Liberal Anthropology and Ronald Reagan

During his presidency, Ronald Reagan was derided by the left as a dangerous warmonger intent on starting World War III, a callous, heartless fiend who cared nothing for the less fortunate. I should know, regrettably, I was one of them.

It is ironic that, on the occasion of Reagan's 100th birthday, some of those same lefties and their ideological heirs are attempting to rehabilitate Reagan as much more moderate than they portrayed him at the time. This is merely part of the continuing effort to demonize the current crop of conservatives and Tea Partiers.

The Las Vegas Sun got into the act with yesterday's editorial, Reagan, reconsidered, making the absurd claim that Reagan would not be conservative enough for today's Republican Party. As usual when trying to explain conservatives, the Sun appears as an anthropologist studying a far-off culture with the benefit only of hieroglyphics he is unable to decode.

That’s because the Republican Party, steeped in tea, has veered far to the right. Reagan couldn’t pass a litmus test on many issues. For example:

• Taxes: Many Republicans now demand a “no new taxes” pledge, and although Reagan slashed taxes after he took office, he wasn’t “pure.” When he saw the size of the deficit increase, fueled by the cuts, he agreed to raise taxes — even as the unemployment rate neared 10 percent. And he didn’t raise taxes just once. Overall, Reagan raised taxes 11 times, including on Social Security.

The overall impact of Reagan's tax policy was a drastic reduction in the tax burden on individuals and businesses. Marginal rates were reduced, the top rate fell from 70% to 28% during his tenure. It was raised to nearly 40% during Bill Clinton's presidency.

His reforms in 1986 simplified the tax code, lowering rates and closing loopholes but expanding the base. This is considered a tax increase by those looking to paint Reagan as a tax raiser, rather than a tax cutter. As a proud member of the "no new taxes" brigade, even I would endorse a plan for Nevada such as that presented by NPRI, which would lower the state sales tax but apply it to both goods and services (provided it were coupled with strong anti-spending measures to ensure that the lower rate couldn't simply be raised at a whim in the future). Could this be considered by some to be a tax increase in an attempt to portray me as a "no new taxes" apostate? Since the sales tax on services under this plan would necessarily increase, it certainly could.

• Spending: Today’s Republicans bash government spending, and they have decried the size of the deficit. Under Reagan, government grew and budgets ballooned. And the federal deficit hit new records. Former Republican Vice President Dick Cheney once said that Reagan “taught us that deficits don’t matter.”

The difference in attitude toward deficits during the Reagan years and under the current administration are due entirely to degree. During the Reagan administration deficits averaged 4.3% of GDP. Deficits under the current administration are around 10%. This is the difference between the guest at your party who has 2 drinks and the one who has 12.

In addition, virtually all of the spending increases during Reagan's presidency were due to the military build-up that eventually bankrupted the Soviet Union and ended the Cold War. Spending under Reagan increased an average of 1.1 percentage points in relation to GDP. Defense spending during those years increased an average of 1.1 percentage points in relation to GDP.

The fact that spending was not reduced during Reagan's term in office was in spite of, not because of, his efforts. For instance, Reagan tried unsuccessfully to abolish the newly-created Department of Education. We are all the worse off for his inability to do so as the department is a $1.5 trillion sinkhole that has done far more to reward adult bureaucrats than it has to improve the education of children. Reagan had to deal with overwhelming Democrat majorities in the House of Representatives, who insisted on spending increases as a price to pay for his military build-up, during his entire term.

Reagan himself was aware of the difficulty of cutting spending. As he famously said in 1964, "A government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth."

• Immigration: Reagan supported a major immigration bill that included amnesty for people here illegally, something that is anathema to the Tea Party. “I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally,” Reagan said during the 1984 campaign. Former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming told NPR that Reagan “knew that it was not right for people to be abused. Anybody who’s here illegally is going to be abused in some way, either financially (or) physically. They have no rights.” So Reagan provided them.

The law also contained strict border control provisions and severe employer sanctions that were supposed to stop the flow of illegal immigrants but were never enforced. While the 1986 law granted amnesty to less than 3 million, possibly as many as 20 million people have streamed across our borders illegally since then.

Much of the opposition to granting amnesty to current illegal immigrants is due to the failure of the original legislation to stem the tide. If we are merely going to grant amnesty to all who've entered the country illegally every couple of decades it will simply encourage more to do so, believing that they too will be one day be awarded amnesty. At that point we may as well do away with the border altogether.

Although it's impossible to know where Reagan would stand on illegal immigration today, considering the failure of the law that he signed, one of his former aides believes that Reagan "would have demanded for that [1986] law to be fixed first before instituting a new overhaul."

• Compromise: Republicans and Tea Party acolytes have, in many ways, embarked on a take-no-prisoners approach to politics, viciously bashing opponents. Reagan certainly was a partisan and engaged in tough political battles, especially with Democratic leaders in Congress, but he was never characterized by demonizing his opponents. Although strongly principled, he engaged his opponents and often worked to find common ground. James Baker, a former chief of staff, told USA Today when he and the president talked about issues Reagan was “so pragmatic” and often told him, “I would rather get 80 percent of what I want than go over the cliff with my flag flying.” On the campaign trail, Reagan was a strong advocate for his party. But Walter Mondale, who ran on the Democratic ticket in both 1980 and 1984, told McClatchy Newspapers that Reagan “never got mean, he never got bitter, he never got personal.”

As I have extensively covered previously, the Sun has no problem with the demonization of political opponents when it is Republicans who are being demonized. In fact, it is a quite willing participant in such instances.

The Sun has consistently praised and supported Harry Reid, for whom demonization of opponents is a consistent feature, and President Obama even as they resisted compromise and demonized their political opponents while pushing through legislation such as the stimulus and health care bills. One could easily be led to believe the Sun's definition of compromise is when Republicans do what Democrats want.

Many on the left, including the Sun, have not reacted well to the continuing popularity of the Tea Party, a right-leaning grassroots movement. Rather than address the movement's legitimate concerns, they have attempted to marginalize them, by dismissing them as racists and/or extremists. Cherry-picking examples from the career of one of the politicians the Tea Partiers generally most admire is simply another attempt at this.

But, regarding what Ronald Reagan would have really thought of the Tea Party, don't take my word for it. Listen to one of the closest living people to the 40th President, his son, Michael Reagan.

UNLV College Republicans Demand Integrity from CSUN

The UNLV College Republicans have issued a press release criticizing CSUN for its handling of the RebFest concert.

(Las Vegas) – Yesterday, the UNLV Rebel Yell reported that CSUN’s Chief Counsel Jon Goldman, creator of the controversial RebFest concert, resigned from CSUN for confidential reasons. However, executives plan to continue paying him the equivalent of his CSUN salary as a consultant for the $242,000 concert, which has come under scrutiny for several reasons including the $70,000 in student fees approved to fund it and the image it will present while higher education funding is slashed. CSUN President David Rapoport, who recommended his friend Goldman be appointed as Chief Counsel last July, has said that Goldman will be paid from the $70,000 allocated to RebFest and stated, “The theory is we could technically hire as many consultants as we want.”

“There is no provision in the approved RebFest budget for unlimited consultants, and Goldman should not be paid now that he is no longer a member of CSUN,” said Mark Ciavola, president of the UNLV College Republicans. “Rapoport has crossed a line into an ethically questionable place.”

One CSUN Senator, who has been working anonymously with the UNLV College Republicans on the RebFest issue, stated that many CSUN officials and senators were aware of Goldman’s ineligibility when he created, drafted the budget for, and proposed the RebFest event to CSUN.

“Members of CSUN should represent students with honor and integrity, or remove themselves as representatives of the student body,” concluded Ciavola.

It is ironic that CSUN encouraged students to condemn proposed budget cuts at the "townhall" meetings with state legislators last week while simultaneously spending $70,000 on a completely frivolous activity. While the amounts may be relatively minor in the context of the billions that state and local governments spend, there is a larger issue here. As with the firefighters who campaigned against the county's contract proposal while many of them were abusing the sick leave system and state employees double-dipping, this betrays a complete lack of concern for the people, the taxpayers, you and me, who fund their salaries and their educations. Frankly, this attitude gives many of us justifiable cause to question even their legitimate spending requests.

Shared Sacrifice: The Private Sector Has Been Sacrificing for Years

Saturday, Democrats in the legislature held meetings in Las Vegas and Reno regarding Governor Sandoval’s budget. Public employee unions and student groups organized their members, in some cases using taxpayer-provided resources to rally their members to make a show of force to lobby the legislators for more taxpayer money.

One of those speaking was a member of the UNLV Faculty Alliance, Dr. John Farley, whose speech was posted on the group’s blog.

At UNLV we’ve been cut already. We recognize that the state is in a crisis, and here’s what the faculty have already done: We’ve had a furlough, we have had our benefits cut. The cut in the medical benefits amount to about $7000 per employee over a decade. And our workload has increased by 20%. So the faculty have taken a hit. And these are budget cuts that have already happened.

Dr. Farley claims to know about shared sacrifice but I’m not really sure he does.

While he mentions taking furlough days, there are nearly 200,000 private sector workers who’ve been on involuntary furloughs of their own, some for more than 3 years.

While he mentions having taken a benefit cut amounting to $7000 over a decade ($700) per year, there are private sector workers who’ve had their own compensation drop by an amount that would equal more than a half-million dollars over a decade.

There are executives who are now working as parking valets. There are business owners who haven’t taken a salary in three years, in order to keep their doors open and their workers employed. Others have sunk nearly their entire life savings back into their companies in an effort to keep them afloat – and even that may not be enough.

These people have already taken a much greater hit than anyone working at UNLV and they can’t afford another hit from the government.

Now there’s a lot of talk about “shared sacrifice”. But there are some people who haven’t sacrificed at all.

The mines pay almost nothing.

Non-casino businesses pay almost nothing.

Casinos do pay something, but it’s much less than they pay in other jurisdictions. Joe Neal testified earlier today about this.

We need to raise taxes. But expect a lot of whining from business.

The idea that any business “pay[s] almost nothing” is a fallacy. Businesses pay sales tax on all the goods and equipment they purchase just like you and I do. They pay licensing fees and property taxes. They pay taxes on the wages, salaries and benefits they pay their employees. They pay and pay and pay and pay.

The list of taxes and fees that businesses pay would fill this page. Add to that the fact they have to deal with a bureaucracy that moves at its own pace with little concern for their well-being.

It’s also a gross misstatement to say that businesses haven’t sacrificed during this recession. The private sector has been suffering for more than 3 years.

Thousands of businesses have been forced to shut their doors. Thousands more have seen their profits turn to massive losses.

Drive around the valley and look at all of the signs on buildings that say “Available”. Many of them were occupied by businesses that have not survived. Every one of them represents an investment by a property owner that is not generating income but is still creating costs.

Nearly 200,000 workers have lost their jobs and many more are working for half or less than what they were before. Even a small tax increase would be enough to drive more businesses under or force them to further cut costs and employees. Yet their sacrifices are dismissed and they are lectured to by six-figure public employees who would rather these people and businesses suffer more than to accept a minor reduction in their own incomes.

UPDATE: Made changes to original.

Cross-posted at the Nevada Business Coalition