NVFBBLOG.ORG
An Agenda For Building Meaningful Economic Wellbeing
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
This morning’s reading materials included a news release from the national Democrats on how Senator Harry Reid has introduced his energy bill which will create 150,000 jobs by doing things like somehow making homes more energy efficient and punishing British Petroleum for the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. I also read a news release from a joint group of folks working on increasing our country’s exports.
Despite not being an economist by training, I would guess that if we could double our nation’s exports, there would be jobs established in the process, although I don’t have the ability to come up with the exact number as is the case with Senator Reid’s introduction of legislation in the U.S. Senate. (Although I could just make up a number -- since I think that's the same technique used by those who work in Washington, D.C. and are involved in telling us how many jobs their legislation will create...)
I might also venture to guess that if our country’s agricultural, manufacturing and service industries were able to accomplish the objective of doubling our exports – the jobs created might actually be more lasting than the government make-work created from taxpayers forking over their hard-earned money to provide for the redistribution plans of the ruling regime in charge of our national government. I suppose it wouldn’t be quite as politically correct given the nature of enterprises which produce profits through producing and selling items that others purchase because they need or want to buy, but it would still seem to be more real economic enhancement than what the energy bill will actually deliver.
I understand that we are in the cycle (that every-other-year time-frame where those we elect to be our representatives need to convince enough people that they are doing their jobs so they will be re-elected) where it is necessary to create the impression that government has the ability to create economic well-being by taking money from those who have it and giving it to those who don’t – but, has anybody been paying attention to the fact that this hasn’t been actually working? Has anybody paid any attention to the way that government has been spending and in spite of making up new metrics (“jobs saved”) our economy is still not performing in a manner that those who actually create jobs (by producing and selling products or services that people purchase because they need or want to buy) are able to provide employment?
Growing government’s ability to take away more of the private sector’s resources (through increased taxes and greater regulatory burdens) will not accomplish the desired results of creating a healthy and productive economy. We have plenty of taxes and regulatory burdens already and it hasn’t seemed that the taxes are enough to pay for the government spending orgies that have been taking place and the regulations that are already in place aren’t being carried out to accomplish the protections they were supposed to provide. Adding more and more is not going to do anything other than make it less likely that anyone will be able to do anything worthwhile.
It seems that those who have come forward with the proposal to increase our exports are on a much more productive path to building our economy with meaningful steps that can be carried out to accomplish something. Now we need those who are supposed to be representing us to stop doing the things that kill jobs and our economy and start doing the things that create opportunities for productive people to grow us out of the hole we’re in.
This morning’s reading materials included a news release from the national Democrats on how Senator Harry Reid has introduced his energy bill which will create 150,000 jobs by doing things like somehow making homes more energy efficient and punishing British Petroleum for the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. I also read a news release from a joint group of folks working on increasing our country’s exports.
Despite not being an economist by training, I would guess that if we could double our nation’s exports, there would be jobs established in the process, although I don’t have the ability to come up with the exact number as is the case with Senator Reid’s introduction of legislation in the U.S. Senate. (Although I could just make up a number -- since I think that's the same technique used by those who work in Washington, D.C. and are involved in telling us how many jobs their legislation will create...)
I might also venture to guess that if our country’s agricultural, manufacturing and service industries were able to accomplish the objective of doubling our exports – the jobs created might actually be more lasting than the government make-work created from taxpayers forking over their hard-earned money to provide for the redistribution plans of the ruling regime in charge of our national government. I suppose it wouldn’t be quite as politically correct given the nature of enterprises which produce profits through producing and selling items that others purchase because they need or want to buy, but it would still seem to be more real economic enhancement than what the energy bill will actually deliver.
I understand that we are in the cycle (that every-other-year time-frame where those we elect to be our representatives need to convince enough people that they are doing their jobs so they will be re-elected) where it is necessary to create the impression that government has the ability to create economic well-being by taking money from those who have it and giving it to those who don’t – but, has anybody been paying attention to the fact that this hasn’t been actually working? Has anybody paid any attention to the way that government has been spending and in spite of making up new metrics (“jobs saved”) our economy is still not performing in a manner that those who actually create jobs (by producing and selling products or services that people purchase because they need or want to buy) are able to provide employment?
Growing government’s ability to take away more of the private sector’s resources (through increased taxes and greater regulatory burdens) will not accomplish the desired results of creating a healthy and productive economy. We have plenty of taxes and regulatory burdens already and it hasn’t seemed that the taxes are enough to pay for the government spending orgies that have been taking place and the regulations that are already in place aren’t being carried out to accomplish the protections they were supposed to provide. Adding more and more is not going to do anything other than make it less likely that anyone will be able to do anything worthwhile.
It seems that those who have come forward with the proposal to increase our exports are on a much more productive path to building our economy with meaningful steps that can be carried out to accomplish something. Now we need those who are supposed to be representing us to stop doing the things that kill jobs and our economy and start doing the things that create opportunities for productive people to grow us out of the hole we’re in.
It Pays Well To Use The System That Is Supposed To Make Proper Federal Decisions
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
On Friday the Nevada Legislature’s Committee on Public Lands will take up an agenda item as part of their Ely meeting hearing details of the way in which the El Paso Corporation that is involved with the Ruby Pipeline bought off a couple of so-called environmental groups to get their silence on the 680-some mile natural gas pipeline. Depending on the information you see it was between $20 and $22 Million for the Western Watershed group and a similar organization in Oregon to drop their opposition to the pipeline.
It would seem that the price for any other project that requires federal approval just went up. Now you have to buy off the anti-management folks in order to get through the system without their tying things up in the appeal and other litigation actions. Western Watersheds will likely use the $20-some Million for their brand of activities aimed at driving livestock grazing from the federal lands.
There is a term for business paying these types of funds in order to be protected from the aggressive use of the system to prevent progress. The word represents what once was considered a crime, but then I would imagine that the organizations which employed these tactics in the past didn’t have the cloak of environmental correctness to provide the cover that this “transaction” involves.
Thank you El Paso Corporation for demonstrating your “concern” for the proper use of federally managed lands and best wishes for your pipeline’s success…as to the methods used to conduct your business -- we are not impressed.
It promises to be an interesting presentation on Friday.
On Friday the Nevada Legislature’s Committee on Public Lands will take up an agenda item as part of their Ely meeting hearing details of the way in which the El Paso Corporation that is involved with the Ruby Pipeline bought off a couple of so-called environmental groups to get their silence on the 680-some mile natural gas pipeline. Depending on the information you see it was between $20 and $22 Million for the Western Watershed group and a similar organization in Oregon to drop their opposition to the pipeline.
It would seem that the price for any other project that requires federal approval just went up. Now you have to buy off the anti-management folks in order to get through the system without their tying things up in the appeal and other litigation actions. Western Watersheds will likely use the $20-some Million for their brand of activities aimed at driving livestock grazing from the federal lands.
There is a term for business paying these types of funds in order to be protected from the aggressive use of the system to prevent progress. The word represents what once was considered a crime, but then I would imagine that the organizations which employed these tactics in the past didn’t have the cloak of environmental correctness to provide the cover that this “transaction” involves.
Thank you El Paso Corporation for demonstrating your “concern” for the proper use of federally managed lands and best wishes for your pipeline’s success…as to the methods used to conduct your business -- we are not impressed.
It promises to be an interesting presentation on Friday.
Before You Get Too Carried Away On Believing A Climate Change Bill Is Over For Now
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
Over the past few days the sources I follow about what’s going on in Washington, D.C. have been giving regular updates on the back-and-forth of whether something might be possible for the U.S. Senate to take up the Cap and Tax idea in their own legislative proposal. It has been interesting to watch the way that Senator Reid and others have been pointing at the Republicans and blaming them for all the things that the Democratically-dominated U.S. Senate can’t get done – including the legislation on climate change.
While this account in the Huffington Post would seem to offer some good news on how the effort to destroy the economy using Big Brother controls and government-stimulated energy costs increases – hold on, let’s not accept the possible demise of this ill-conceived idea until after January of 2011. If the U.S. Senate passes anything related to energy (probably not a very good idea for anyone who treasures free enterprise) the likely outcome will be a “conference” of some type between what the House passed (Cap and Tax) and whatever the Senate might pass. That would probably be on the docket for a lame-duck, post election session of Congress.
We know that with the bunch of folks leading this Congress, rules don’t mean anything (except if you’re looking for an excuse to blame somebody else for the votes you can’t get because the ideas that are being considered really stink)…so you could easily end up with whatever Obama, Reid and Pelosi want. Is it that long ago to remember what was carried out through the Health Payment legislative process?
Along with keeping an eye on the details that emerge in legislative discussions for a Senate energy proposal, we also need to recognize that those who want to use the power of the federal government to further erode the affordability of necessary energy supplies will continue to work at bringing some type of tax and control package forward – using the scientific theory of climate change as their excuse.
Over the past few days the sources I follow about what’s going on in Washington, D.C. have been giving regular updates on the back-and-forth of whether something might be possible for the U.S. Senate to take up the Cap and Tax idea in their own legislative proposal. It has been interesting to watch the way that Senator Reid and others have been pointing at the Republicans and blaming them for all the things that the Democratically-dominated U.S. Senate can’t get done – including the legislation on climate change.
While this account in the Huffington Post would seem to offer some good news on how the effort to destroy the economy using Big Brother controls and government-stimulated energy costs increases – hold on, let’s not accept the possible demise of this ill-conceived idea until after January of 2011. If the U.S. Senate passes anything related to energy (probably not a very good idea for anyone who treasures free enterprise) the likely outcome will be a “conference” of some type between what the House passed (Cap and Tax) and whatever the Senate might pass. That would probably be on the docket for a lame-duck, post election session of Congress.
We know that with the bunch of folks leading this Congress, rules don’t mean anything (except if you’re looking for an excuse to blame somebody else for the votes you can’t get because the ideas that are being considered really stink)…so you could easily end up with whatever Obama, Reid and Pelosi want. Is it that long ago to remember what was carried out through the Health Payment legislative process?
Along with keeping an eye on the details that emerge in legislative discussions for a Senate energy proposal, we also need to recognize that those who want to use the power of the federal government to further erode the affordability of necessary energy supplies will continue to work at bringing some type of tax and control package forward – using the scientific theory of climate change as their excuse.
Owning Up To The Death Tax Burden
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
Using the legislative process as only he knows how, Nevada’s U.S. Senator Harry Reid is working hard to keep any possible solution for the reinstitution of the Death Tax from coming about in January of 2011. While promoting how he has picked up the phone to save jobs in Las Vegas or telling us how grateful we should be about the role he is playing in establishing a totally unsustainable alternative energy industry – not much gets reported on how his legislative activities are keeping family-owned businesses from realizing relieve (even partially) from the snap-back of the Death Tax in 2011.
If one didn’t know better, the ultimate purpose of the current regime is the complete devastation of our private enterprise system. This would appear to be the mission the U.S. Senate Majority Leader is carrying out with the legislative maneuvers oriented to keep Death Tax reform off the voting docket in the U.S. Senate. Doing nothing (something that the U.S. Senate has proven to be quite good at under the Senator’s “leadership”) accomplishes the objective of the Death Tax coming back full force in 2011.
As we can see from these various points , provided by the American Family Business Foundation, there is a lot of sound, economic reasoning that forms the basis for a total, permanent repeal of the Death Tax. However, even the partial reform that is offered in the bi-partisan proposal by Senators Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Jon Kyl of Arizona is being thwarted by Senator Reid who has indicated that the legislation being considered for the amendment has gone past the limits of what might be considered for amendments. This is an interesting application of the “rules” by the person who has found ways to accomplish his agenda through such things as the “Louisiana Purchase” and the “Cornhusker Kickback”
While trying to convince Nevada voters about how things would have been so much worse (this with Nevada leading the way in unemployment) if he hadn’t been there inventing the concept of “saved” or “created” jobs – without having to account for the lost employment that the government’s wild spending was causing to crash the economy – we’re not suppose to recognize that the impending tax increases in 2011 aren’t going to make things worse?
Economist Dr. Douglas Holtz Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, estimates that the Death Tax lowers overall employment in America by 1.5 Million jobs…government’s confiscation of capital seems to have a negative effect on business enterprises trying to stay in business and provide jobs.
One study , by economist Steve Entin, highlights the degree to which the Death Tax harms the whole American economy – lowering GDP by $119 Billion and labor income by $79 Billion.
Perhaps the most interesting arguments made to justify the imposition of the Death Tax is the desire to use this government power in order to redistribute wealth earned by others to those who think government has a place in carrying out this objective. Supposedly we’re to believe that the super wealthy will be prevented from maintaining their huge treasures and developing lines of heritage where estates are perpetuated. This would be the folks who are using the system to establish non-taxed protections like foundations and trust that keep what they’ve got while supporting the process of the government taking away any up-and-comers ability to pass the results of their hard work and good fortune to their children and grandchildren.
The bottom line is that the Death Tax is an unjustifiable and inappropriate confiscation of capital. Those who aren’t working to do away with or even partially abate the implementation of the Death Tax are in fact the persons who should be held accountable, by voters in November.
Using the legislative process as only he knows how, Nevada’s U.S. Senator Harry Reid is working hard to keep any possible solution for the reinstitution of the Death Tax from coming about in January of 2011. While promoting how he has picked up the phone to save jobs in Las Vegas or telling us how grateful we should be about the role he is playing in establishing a totally unsustainable alternative energy industry – not much gets reported on how his legislative activities are keeping family-owned businesses from realizing relieve (even partially) from the snap-back of the Death Tax in 2011.
If one didn’t know better, the ultimate purpose of the current regime is the complete devastation of our private enterprise system. This would appear to be the mission the U.S. Senate Majority Leader is carrying out with the legislative maneuvers oriented to keep Death Tax reform off the voting docket in the U.S. Senate. Doing nothing (something that the U.S. Senate has proven to be quite good at under the Senator’s “leadership”) accomplishes the objective of the Death Tax coming back full force in 2011.
As we can see from these various points , provided by the American Family Business Foundation, there is a lot of sound, economic reasoning that forms the basis for a total, permanent repeal of the Death Tax. However, even the partial reform that is offered in the bi-partisan proposal by Senators Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Jon Kyl of Arizona is being thwarted by Senator Reid who has indicated that the legislation being considered for the amendment has gone past the limits of what might be considered for amendments. This is an interesting application of the “rules” by the person who has found ways to accomplish his agenda through such things as the “Louisiana Purchase” and the “Cornhusker Kickback”
While trying to convince Nevada voters about how things would have been so much worse (this with Nevada leading the way in unemployment) if he hadn’t been there inventing the concept of “saved” or “created” jobs – without having to account for the lost employment that the government’s wild spending was causing to crash the economy – we’re not suppose to recognize that the impending tax increases in 2011 aren’t going to make things worse?
Economist Dr. Douglas Holtz Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, estimates that the Death Tax lowers overall employment in America by 1.5 Million jobs…government’s confiscation of capital seems to have a negative effect on business enterprises trying to stay in business and provide jobs.
One study , by economist Steve Entin, highlights the degree to which the Death Tax harms the whole American economy – lowering GDP by $119 Billion and labor income by $79 Billion.
Perhaps the most interesting arguments made to justify the imposition of the Death Tax is the desire to use this government power in order to redistribute wealth earned by others to those who think government has a place in carrying out this objective. Supposedly we’re to believe that the super wealthy will be prevented from maintaining their huge treasures and developing lines of heritage where estates are perpetuated. This would be the folks who are using the system to establish non-taxed protections like foundations and trust that keep what they’ve got while supporting the process of the government taking away any up-and-comers ability to pass the results of their hard work and good fortune to their children and grandchildren.
The bottom line is that the Death Tax is an unjustifiable and inappropriate confiscation of capital. Those who aren’t working to do away with or even partially abate the implementation of the Death Tax are in fact the persons who should be held accountable, by voters in November.
How Do You Justify Taxing Dead People’s Property?
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
We need to clearly understand that the impending increases in the Death Tax in 2011 (unless something is done to change the outcome before January, 2011) will not be an unfortunate accident of the process. If changes are not made the re-institution of the Death Tax (at the rate and to the amounts of anything more than $1 Million in estates) will be something that was deliberately carried out by those currently in control of the legislative process in Washington, D.C.
Although there may be some resolution of the outcome with possible amendments and other legislative arrangements, it is not unreasonable to consider that those who are not supporting or working to make changes are in fact supportive of the Death Tax being re-instituted with as much as a 55 percent rate and on any estate above the $1 Million threshold.
Because of the impact that Death Taxes have on agricultural and other family-sized business enterprises, there has been a struggle to figure out what the arguments might be for there being a Death Tax. I’m well aware of the reasons for doing away with the tax entirely (something which has been attempted and has gotten to the point of 2010 where it is in fact not in operation), but figuring out how anyone could justify the Death Tax caused be to do something rather unusual -- I did a Google search and found this interesting case at Wikipedia for the arguments made to have the Death Tax system we have coming back.
I have to admit that I didn’t find any of the excuses worthy or even reasonable, but in a nutshell we’re supposed to believe that taxing the estates:
In the mirage of fighting the class war of the wealthy vs the middle-class or desperately needy, it should not be lost that the urbra-wealthy who are supposedly the targets of the Death Tax are insulated from having any problems with the tax burdens, capable of spending the resources necessary to avoid the break-up of their generational wealth distribution. Those in the middle, especially in capital intensive fields are harmed the most and prevented from passing along to their heirs the capacity of what has been built in a life-time or the long-term capability of establishing the solid basis for multi-generational asset accumulation.
The question of whether the Death Tax is appropriate comes down to the core difference of philosophy. If you believe in freedom and the rights of the individual – you are most likely to oppose the concept of Death Taxes being the burden they are headed to becoming again. If you believe that government’s appropriate role is to bestow on the masses whatever can be generated through redistribution schemes of all types – very much the attitude and approach of those in charge of government today – you can hardly wait until January 1, 2011 to get back into the operations of taxing those who have died.
We need to clearly understand that the impending increases in the Death Tax in 2011 (unless something is done to change the outcome before January, 2011) will not be an unfortunate accident of the process. If changes are not made the re-institution of the Death Tax (at the rate and to the amounts of anything more than $1 Million in estates) will be something that was deliberately carried out by those currently in control of the legislative process in Washington, D.C.
Although there may be some resolution of the outcome with possible amendments and other legislative arrangements, it is not unreasonable to consider that those who are not supporting or working to make changes are in fact supportive of the Death Tax being re-instituted with as much as a 55 percent rate and on any estate above the $1 Million threshold.
Because of the impact that Death Taxes have on agricultural and other family-sized business enterprises, there has been a struggle to figure out what the arguments might be for there being a Death Tax. I’m well aware of the reasons for doing away with the tax entirely (something which has been attempted and has gotten to the point of 2010 where it is in fact not in operation), but figuring out how anyone could justify the Death Tax caused be to do something rather unusual -- I did a Google search and found this interesting case at Wikipedia for the arguments made to have the Death Tax system we have coming back.
I have to admit that I didn’t find any of the excuses worthy or even reasonable, but in a nutshell we’re supposed to believe that taxing the estates:
- Prevents the perpetuation of wealth, tax free, locked up in the possession of wealthy families
- It’s really not all that bad since there are credits and other considerations to alleviate some of the burden
- If the government doesn’t tax the transfer of wealth – government might not get any of it
- It is better to tax the wealth of those who have died than revenue of those working
- Wealth inherited makes people less likely to work
- We have a history of limiting inheritance
- Children don’t have any moral right to wealth earned by their parents
In the mirage of fighting the class war of the wealthy vs the middle-class or desperately needy, it should not be lost that the urbra-wealthy who are supposedly the targets of the Death Tax are insulated from having any problems with the tax burdens, capable of spending the resources necessary to avoid the break-up of their generational wealth distribution. Those in the middle, especially in capital intensive fields are harmed the most and prevented from passing along to their heirs the capacity of what has been built in a life-time or the long-term capability of establishing the solid basis for multi-generational asset accumulation.
The question of whether the Death Tax is appropriate comes down to the core difference of philosophy. If you believe in freedom and the rights of the individual – you are most likely to oppose the concept of Death Taxes being the burden they are headed to becoming again. If you believe that government’s appropriate role is to bestow on the masses whatever can be generated through redistribution schemes of all types – very much the attitude and approach of those in charge of government today – you can hardly wait until January 1, 2011 to get back into the operations of taxing those who have died.
Getting The Level Of Nevada Government We Can Afford
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
While we should hold no illusions that the current majority party, in charge of the Nevada Legislature, would very much like to raise taxes in the 2011 Nevada Legislative session and continue with their unbroken streak of growing the size of Nevada’s expenditures – this recent warning from the Tax Foundation will hopefully give some sense of caution. The Fact Sheet, authored by Joseph Henchman, makes a very strong admonition “The state should be careful about its options, as its ability to attract investment and capital depends greatly on its favorable tax climate.”
A lot of the current mindset about what might come up in the 2011 Legislative Session is the not so veiled ideas that the Senate Majority Leader, Senator Steven Horsford, has been considering as being a “fair” approach to establishing a Nevada tax structure that doesn’t yield revenue hardships for state government when the economy isn’t booming. Supposedly, government should never expect to get by with less and all it will take is the right taxing system and this won’t be a problem for legislators to have to contend with.
The Tax Foundation’s report clearly establishes that there is no magic tax formula that doesn’t feel the hit of downturns. It also firmly documents that the specific new taxes Horsford is thought to favor (Corporate Income Tax or Gross Receipts Tax) are not what anyone who cares about the state’s economy would consider.
Somewhat building on the concepts of the Nevada Policy Research Institute’s “One Sound State, Once Again” proposal for a broad-based, low rate sales tax, the Tax Foundation indicated that “a properly structured sales tax applies to all consumer purchases of goods and services, but not to business purchases.”
The report goes on to explain the reason for not including business purchases in their view of a properly structured sales tax -- “The purpose of this exemption is not to promote business in general but rather to avoid the double taxation of some products.”
One of the ideas for how Nevada’s taxing and spending should be operated, came out in comments offered by the Nevada Taxpayers Association President, Carol Vilardo, speaking at a meeting of the Nevada Stakeholders Group. She offered the idea that Nevada’s approach needs to be sustainable.
This is one of the foundational building blocks from the Nevada Spending and Government Efficiency Commission (SAGE), which Vilardo served as a member.
In the first chapter of the SAGE Commission’s book “Bipartisan Directors for Nevada’s Future”, the simple message (highlighted in the Chapter Title) “The Status Quo is Unaffordable”. At the bottom of the same page the observation is very similar – “The status quo in Nevada’s state and local governments is simply unstainable.”
The concept of sustainability is extremely well embraced by those who seem to think it’s a great approach to everything but government. Although the limits of government should be based on something more definite than politically-correct warm and fuzzies…there might be elements that can be extracted from the supposed proper “Sustainable Development” idea which has been defined in the past as being “…development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” This diagram offers the pictorial perspective of the confluence of various considerations for a sustainability that factors in environment, social and economic interests.
Perhaps with adjustments for the title categories of “Social” – “Environment” – “Economic” a model can be considered which plots the appropriate degrees of government and the ability of the private sector to pay for those constrained and limited levels of “service”.
While we should hold no illusions that the current majority party, in charge of the Nevada Legislature, would very much like to raise taxes in the 2011 Nevada Legislative session and continue with their unbroken streak of growing the size of Nevada’s expenditures – this recent warning from the Tax Foundation will hopefully give some sense of caution. The Fact Sheet, authored by Joseph Henchman, makes a very strong admonition “The state should be careful about its options, as its ability to attract investment and capital depends greatly on its favorable tax climate.”
A lot of the current mindset about what might come up in the 2011 Legislative Session is the not so veiled ideas that the Senate Majority Leader, Senator Steven Horsford, has been considering as being a “fair” approach to establishing a Nevada tax structure that doesn’t yield revenue hardships for state government when the economy isn’t booming. Supposedly, government should never expect to get by with less and all it will take is the right taxing system and this won’t be a problem for legislators to have to contend with.
The Tax Foundation’s report clearly establishes that there is no magic tax formula that doesn’t feel the hit of downturns. It also firmly documents that the specific new taxes Horsford is thought to favor (Corporate Income Tax or Gross Receipts Tax) are not what anyone who cares about the state’s economy would consider.
Somewhat building on the concepts of the Nevada Policy Research Institute’s “One Sound State, Once Again” proposal for a broad-based, low rate sales tax, the Tax Foundation indicated that “a properly structured sales tax applies to all consumer purchases of goods and services, but not to business purchases.”
The report goes on to explain the reason for not including business purchases in their view of a properly structured sales tax -- “The purpose of this exemption is not to promote business in general but rather to avoid the double taxation of some products.”
One of the ideas for how Nevada’s taxing and spending should be operated, came out in comments offered by the Nevada Taxpayers Association President, Carol Vilardo, speaking at a meeting of the Nevada Stakeholders Group. She offered the idea that Nevada’s approach needs to be sustainable.
This is one of the foundational building blocks from the Nevada Spending and Government Efficiency Commission (SAGE), which Vilardo served as a member.
In the first chapter of the SAGE Commission’s book “Bipartisan Directors for Nevada’s Future”, the simple message (highlighted in the Chapter Title) “The Status Quo is Unaffordable”. At the bottom of the same page the observation is very similar – “The status quo in Nevada’s state and local governments is simply unstainable.”
The concept of sustainability is extremely well embraced by those who seem to think it’s a great approach to everything but government. Although the limits of government should be based on something more definite than politically-correct warm and fuzzies…there might be elements that can be extracted from the supposed proper “Sustainable Development” idea which has been defined in the past as being “…development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” This diagram offers the pictorial perspective of the confluence of various considerations for a sustainability that factors in environment, social and economic interests.
Perhaps with adjustments for the title categories of “Social” – “Environment” – “Economic” a model can be considered which plots the appropriate degrees of government and the ability of the private sector to pay for those constrained and limited levels of “service”.
The Solution To Crash Wild Horse & Burro Management On Federally-Managed Lands
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
Over the last couple of days we’ve seen an escalation in the media’s attention to the attempts by the Bureau of Land Management to carry out management of Wild Horses. The attention being given to the issue is an orchestrated plan by those who claim to be advocates for Wild Horses to implement their version of the “Cloward-Piven ” Strategy of chaos to force gridlock…crisis to prevent responsible management.
Lost in the turmoil is the need for some type of management. BLM is quick to require livestock owners, using to federally-managed range lands to conform to the standards for rangeland health that have been in place since the Clinton Administration’s “Rangeland Reform ‘94”. In the classic “Do as We Say – Not As We Do” mode, government bureaucrats hold other multiple use interests accountable for range land management that they struggle to accomplish when it's their animals in question. Under federal law, BLM is responsible for managing Wild Horses and Burros.
Advocates who don’t want Wild Horses and Burros managed are attempting to use the “Cows vs Horses” argument with ranchers as the scapegoats for their public relations campaign.
Somehow, in spite of highly-restricted regulations that stipulate the conditions under which livestock grazing can be carried out on federal lands, irresponsible and untrue comments of how horses are being removed to increase cow numbers are fed through media accounts, putting livestock producers in a juxtaposition of being the evil/greedy pillagers and the majestic Wild Horses as the victim’s driven from their homes.
Resource management and any other use of these land areas (wildlife and their habitat being harmed in major ways as a consequence of non-management for Wild Horses) is emotionally dismissed as being manipulated for ill-begotten gain.
Through a constant bombardment of this coordinated scheme of public misinformation and heart-tugging prodding the end of the plank which is being walked comes closer and closer…with the potential grid-lock of doing nothing soon to be realized. Once ground to a halt, fixing the mess will become so impossible and expensive the simple solution will be to just give up.
Mission accomplished for those who don’t want Wild Horses managed and their allies who want livestock grazing forced from the federal lands.
Over the last couple of days we’ve seen an escalation in the media’s attention to the attempts by the Bureau of Land Management to carry out management of Wild Horses. The attention being given to the issue is an orchestrated plan by those who claim to be advocates for Wild Horses to implement their version of the “Cloward-Piven ” Strategy of chaos to force gridlock…crisis to prevent responsible management.
Lost in the turmoil is the need for some type of management. BLM is quick to require livestock owners, using to federally-managed range lands to conform to the standards for rangeland health that have been in place since the Clinton Administration’s “Rangeland Reform ‘94”. In the classic “Do as We Say – Not As We Do” mode, government bureaucrats hold other multiple use interests accountable for range land management that they struggle to accomplish when it's their animals in question. Under federal law, BLM is responsible for managing Wild Horses and Burros.
Advocates who don’t want Wild Horses and Burros managed are attempting to use the “Cows vs Horses” argument with ranchers as the scapegoats for their public relations campaign.
Somehow, in spite of highly-restricted regulations that stipulate the conditions under which livestock grazing can be carried out on federal lands, irresponsible and untrue comments of how horses are being removed to increase cow numbers are fed through media accounts, putting livestock producers in a juxtaposition of being the evil/greedy pillagers and the majestic Wild Horses as the victim’s driven from their homes.
Resource management and any other use of these land areas (wildlife and their habitat being harmed in major ways as a consequence of non-management for Wild Horses) is emotionally dismissed as being manipulated for ill-begotten gain.
Through a constant bombardment of this coordinated scheme of public misinformation and heart-tugging prodding the end of the plank which is being walked comes closer and closer…with the potential grid-lock of doing nothing soon to be realized. Once ground to a halt, fixing the mess will become so impossible and expensive the simple solution will be to just give up.
Mission accomplished for those who don’t want Wild Horses managed and their allies who want livestock grazing forced from the federal lands.
Developing Progress For Ending Death Taxes?
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
As the clock continues to tick away the current session of Congress and the advancement of a Senate bill to deal with correcting the 2011 re-institution of the Death Tax (by not doing anything) there has been a significant development in the form of a possible amendment to the fiscal reform package pending attention. The amendment is being offered by Senators Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Jon Kyl of Arizona.
If allowed by the Senate Leadership (that would involve Senator Harry Reid) the amendment could be included in the unfolding debate on H.R. 5297, the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010. If the concept were added to a legislative proposal that makes its way into law – the results would be:
Those deeply interested in the resolution of the matter are working hard to convince their U.S. Senators that such an amendment would be a very good idea. There is also a strong push to reach out to U.S. Senator Harry Reid in hopes that he would go along with adding this amendment to the list of other add-ons being offered for H.R. 5297. One of the groups involved in this effort is the American Farm Bureau Federation, who offered this news release on the importance of getting the Death Tax matter resolved…using this amendment to accomplish the task.
Others have also noticed the developments taking shape and weighed in with their thinking. The Heritage Foundation has put out this information on the subject. It is somewhat interesting to read in the Heritage Foundation’s post, authored by Curtis Dubay, that the delays for Senate action on resolving the Death Tax issue are being attributed to Senate Majority Leader Reid. Some think that Reid actually wants the Death Tax coming back in 2011 – in full force!
Dubay notes, as have others, “that the economy cannot afford for the 55 percent rate and $1 Million exemption at any time, but now, in its badly weakened state, is an especially bad time.”
As we continue to hear about how much our U.S. Senator is doing – it will be worthy to pay close attention to how this detail plays itself out…
As the clock continues to tick away the current session of Congress and the advancement of a Senate bill to deal with correcting the 2011 re-institution of the Death Tax (by not doing anything) there has been a significant development in the form of a possible amendment to the fiscal reform package pending attention. The amendment is being offered by Senators Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Jon Kyl of Arizona.
If allowed by the Senate Leadership (that would involve Senator Harry Reid) the amendment could be included in the unfolding debate on H.R. 5297, the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010. If the concept were added to a legislative proposal that makes its way into law – the results would be:
- Permanently set the estate tax at 35 percent with a $5 Million exemption amount, phased in over 10 years and indexed for inflation
- Provide a “stepped up basis” for inherited assets
- Allow the estates of people who died in 2010 to choose to settle their estates under current law (with no estate tax, but with a modified step-up basis) or file under the new law
- Offset estate tax relief that is above that provided by the House-passed bill and the Obama Administration’s proposal for a 45 percent estate tax rate with a $3.5 Million exemption
Those deeply interested in the resolution of the matter are working hard to convince their U.S. Senators that such an amendment would be a very good idea. There is also a strong push to reach out to U.S. Senator Harry Reid in hopes that he would go along with adding this amendment to the list of other add-ons being offered for H.R. 5297. One of the groups involved in this effort is the American Farm Bureau Federation, who offered this news release on the importance of getting the Death Tax matter resolved…using this amendment to accomplish the task.
Others have also noticed the developments taking shape and weighed in with their thinking. The Heritage Foundation has put out this information on the subject. It is somewhat interesting to read in the Heritage Foundation’s post, authored by Curtis Dubay, that the delays for Senate action on resolving the Death Tax issue are being attributed to Senate Majority Leader Reid. Some think that Reid actually wants the Death Tax coming back in 2011 – in full force!
Dubay notes, as have others, “that the economy cannot afford for the 55 percent rate and $1 Million exemption at any time, but now, in its badly weakened state, is an especially bad time.”
As we continue to hear about how much our U.S. Senator is doing – it will be worthy to pay close attention to how this detail plays itself out…
We Need Candidates Who Put The Focus On Growing Private Sector Opportunity
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
It’s only July and the crap that passes for campaign messaging right now is already old and tired. Our airwaves has been saturated by a U.S. Senator, seeking re-election on the basis that the person who is running against him should be perceived as someone too far out there to warrant consideration. Never mind that the Senator has been in power, successfully implementing policies that have our economy in shambles. He can’t win re-election on successful defense of his record (given the dire consequences that those “accomplishments” have caused)…so the strategy is a scorched-earth approach to destroy the opponent’s reputation – taking the negatives for her down to match his own sorry approval rating.
Meanwhile, has anyone thought about perhaps considering a campaign idea on advancing proactive policies, designed at building our economy? Well -- Yes (since I’ve asked) -- there is something like that out there…although I’ve not seen too many actual candidates embracing the idea.
Here is a ready-made blue print of policy to get things rolling with. In addition to the highlighted post, American Solutions Website has been an outstanding place to visit to get solid information on policies oriented for building our economy through enhanced opportunities for the private sector to be successful. Here is one example of the extremely valuable policy ideas that are offered for those who might be interested in formulating a proactive agenda that really can work to stimulate the economy.
Unlike those in power now believe (that goes for the Nevada Legislature as well as in Washington, D.C.) – you don’t accomplish making people’s lives better with bigger doses of government. Prosperity comes by unburdening the private sector from government’s intrusive, command and control – tax and spend policies.
As the private sector is given the ability to prosper, people who are committed to being self-reliant and accept responsibility for their own destiny are unleashed to participate in making the entire economy bloom.
Instead of the messages on how those in government need to be “thanked” for all that they have been doing (just look around at how well that’s going) – we need to hear from champions of the private sector who say “Vote for me and I’ll work with you and others to get government out of your wallet and off your back.”
Contrary to the belief of the majority party – that we owe government whatever they decide they want to spend…advancing opportunity for the private sector through tax reductions and implementing policies of responsible, sustainable levels of appropriate degrees of government infrastructure will get us to where we need to be.
It’s only July and the crap that passes for campaign messaging right now is already old and tired. Our airwaves has been saturated by a U.S. Senator, seeking re-election on the basis that the person who is running against him should be perceived as someone too far out there to warrant consideration. Never mind that the Senator has been in power, successfully implementing policies that have our economy in shambles. He can’t win re-election on successful defense of his record (given the dire consequences that those “accomplishments” have caused)…so the strategy is a scorched-earth approach to destroy the opponent’s reputation – taking the negatives for her down to match his own sorry approval rating.
Meanwhile, has anyone thought about perhaps considering a campaign idea on advancing proactive policies, designed at building our economy? Well -- Yes (since I’ve asked) -- there is something like that out there…although I’ve not seen too many actual candidates embracing the idea.
Here is a ready-made blue print of policy to get things rolling with. In addition to the highlighted post, American Solutions Website has been an outstanding place to visit to get solid information on policies oriented for building our economy through enhanced opportunities for the private sector to be successful. Here is one example of the extremely valuable policy ideas that are offered for those who might be interested in formulating a proactive agenda that really can work to stimulate the economy.
Unlike those in power now believe (that goes for the Nevada Legislature as well as in Washington, D.C.) – you don’t accomplish making people’s lives better with bigger doses of government. Prosperity comes by unburdening the private sector from government’s intrusive, command and control – tax and spend policies.
As the private sector is given the ability to prosper, people who are committed to being self-reliant and accept responsibility for their own destiny are unleashed to participate in making the entire economy bloom.
Instead of the messages on how those in government need to be “thanked” for all that they have been doing (just look around at how well that’s going) – we need to hear from champions of the private sector who say “Vote for me and I’ll work with you and others to get government out of your wallet and off your back.”
Contrary to the belief of the majority party – that we owe government whatever they decide they want to spend…advancing opportunity for the private sector through tax reductions and implementing policies of responsible, sustainable levels of appropriate degrees of government infrastructure will get us to where we need to be.
Congress Needs To Stop The 2011 Tax Increases
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
As we edge closer to the November 2010 elections we need to pay special attention to the activities not taking place in the halls of Congress. If the current group of elected representatives were contemplating the massive tax increases that will take place on January 2011 as an overt action – all heck would be breaking and those facing re-election would be backing away from that increase about as quickly as anyone can back away from anything.
However, by not doing the right thing, before January 2011 – they get to have the tax increases they seem intent for us to be forced into paying – without any of the downside of being held accountable for the massive tax increases poised to befall us.
One example is the increase of taxes that will come about with the reinstitution of the Death Tax. The heirs of someone dying in 2010 will not have to pay any Death Tax. Anyone who dies on January 1, 2011 or after will leave his heirs with a tax on all but the first $1 million of the estate and a maximum rate of 55 percent.
Death Taxes can destroy a family business (especially those as capital and asset intensive as production agriculture) and it is not uncommon for surviving family members to be required to sell land, equipment and other assets to pay the taxes required. Planning to avoid the devastation of Uncle Sam’s Grim-Reaper Tax Raids is also problematic, diverting funds that could have been reinvested in the on-going agricultural operations.
There’s something to be said about someone paying taxes on their income throughout their lives, working hard to put together the pieces in order to leave something to the next generation – and then dying and passing along a Death Tax burden – that “something” is a less then kind or positive thought about a government which is willing to accept that approach to funding the excessive and wasteful spending our current group of representatives are doing.
Even if the members of Congress cannot or will not institute a legislative correction to keep the Death Tax from coming back at all in 2011 – passage should be given to a partial solution. Farm Bureau and others involved have been working to bring about an increase in the exemption level, taking it to $5 million (with provisions for the adjustments to deal with inflation) and reducing the maximum rate to 35 percent. The estate tax reform package that needs to be passed by this session of Congress should also include a stepped-up basis, which limits the amount of property value appreciation that is subject to capital gains taxes if the assets are sold.
The planned, automatic re-institution of the Death Tax in 2011 is a mistake that lawmakers in Washington, D.C. need to fix this year. With all the political falderal coming from Washington, D.C. on how jobs and our economy are such priorities – perhaps something actually meaningful would be worthwhile for doing something about something that needs doing.
Not fixing the Death Tax is something that should be looked on November as a tax increase, stimulated by government greed and uncaring representatives who think there is nothing wrong with sending the tax collectors out to pilfer the estates of those who have died…at a rate up to 55 percent of what’s been left behind.
As we edge closer to the November 2010 elections we need to pay special attention to the activities not taking place in the halls of Congress. If the current group of elected representatives were contemplating the massive tax increases that will take place on January 2011 as an overt action – all heck would be breaking and those facing re-election would be backing away from that increase about as quickly as anyone can back away from anything.
However, by not doing the right thing, before January 2011 – they get to have the tax increases they seem intent for us to be forced into paying – without any of the downside of being held accountable for the massive tax increases poised to befall us.
One example is the increase of taxes that will come about with the reinstitution of the Death Tax. The heirs of someone dying in 2010 will not have to pay any Death Tax. Anyone who dies on January 1, 2011 or after will leave his heirs with a tax on all but the first $1 million of the estate and a maximum rate of 55 percent.
Death Taxes can destroy a family business (especially those as capital and asset intensive as production agriculture) and it is not uncommon for surviving family members to be required to sell land, equipment and other assets to pay the taxes required. Planning to avoid the devastation of Uncle Sam’s Grim-Reaper Tax Raids is also problematic, diverting funds that could have been reinvested in the on-going agricultural operations.
There’s something to be said about someone paying taxes on their income throughout their lives, working hard to put together the pieces in order to leave something to the next generation – and then dying and passing along a Death Tax burden – that “something” is a less then kind or positive thought about a government which is willing to accept that approach to funding the excessive and wasteful spending our current group of representatives are doing.
Even if the members of Congress cannot or will not institute a legislative correction to keep the Death Tax from coming back at all in 2011 – passage should be given to a partial solution. Farm Bureau and others involved have been working to bring about an increase in the exemption level, taking it to $5 million (with provisions for the adjustments to deal with inflation) and reducing the maximum rate to 35 percent. The estate tax reform package that needs to be passed by this session of Congress should also include a stepped-up basis, which limits the amount of property value appreciation that is subject to capital gains taxes if the assets are sold.
The planned, automatic re-institution of the Death Tax in 2011 is a mistake that lawmakers in Washington, D.C. need to fix this year. With all the political falderal coming from Washington, D.C. on how jobs and our economy are such priorities – perhaps something actually meaningful would be worthwhile for doing something about something that needs doing.
Not fixing the Death Tax is something that should be looked on November as a tax increase, stimulated by government greed and uncaring representatives who think there is nothing wrong with sending the tax collectors out to pilfer the estates of those who have died…at a rate up to 55 percent of what’s been left behind.