Posted by Webmaster on February 10, 2009 under News
Many of us have feared this for many years.
And here it is.
It’s in a letter from the Congressional Budget Office to Wyoming Senator Judd Gregg, and it makes clear that the federal government plans to take from the working (actually, the grandchildren of the working, since we’re talking deficit spending) and give to the “underemployed.”
A dollar’s worth of a temporary tax cut would have a smaller effect on GDP than a dollar’s worth of direct purchases or transfers, because a significant share of the tax cut would probably be saved… However, the predominantly lower-income households that spend all of their income and would like to borrow funds to spend more if they could [known as 'liquidity constrained' households] probably spend a large share of temporary boosts to income,”
Here’s the complete letter.
Posted by Webmaster on February 8, 2009 under Labor, News, Retirement, Salaries
Click the image for full-size
This Sunday, page 5B of the Review Journal was a full-page ad, paid for by a consortium of local government unions apparently stung by the growing public awareness of how they pillage taxpayers. Bear in mind – no actual government workers were involved in the ad, just the government unions.
The five highest-paid Chamber employees are compared with two high-paid (not highest) government employees and three average pay figures.
The ad pitches more money and benefits for government union members by suggesting members compare poorly with “the private sector.” The Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, of course, is not a private sector organization. It is a 501(c) non-profit organization which, in addition to having membership revenue from private businesses, has a bunch of membership revenue from local government entities. The Chamber is partly government-funded.
Still, the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce is subject to most of the same payroll taxes as a private entity. Combined with retirement benefit differences, these factors drive up government compensation well beyond the Chamber.
Let’s take the Jill Flores – Greg Gammon comparison as an illustrative example.
First, reduce Jill Flores’ pay by $6,572. That’s how much the Chamber takes out of Jill’s paycheck to send to Washington for social security. Greg’s paycheck is not reduced.
Next, reduce Jill Flores’ pay by another $2,500, because that’s how much Jill gets paid for the approximately four holidays every year that she has to work because her organization is open, while Greg gets them off (or, more likely, gets double pay for working them. Government gets more days off.
(By the way, this same phenomenon causes the teacher-private sector comparison to be way off – never mind the silly comparison between a teacher and a successful salesperson. The $49,000 per year in the union ad immediately goes to $62,400 per year because teachers have three months off each summer, in addition to many of the other adjustments outlined in this article).
As a career fireman, Greg has long enjoyed a work schedule that involves being on duty for 24-hours followed by two days off duty. It’s like a weekend every other day. And, like most firemen, Greg has probably spent his two weekends off per week starting and growing a thriving small business. Jill, on the other hand, has worked at least four ten-hour days per week as a Chamber executive. Sometimes five, and sometimes she works on her weekends, for no additional compensation. You can find such dedication in government, but it’s much rarer. And it doesn’t easily allow starting and growing a side business.
But those qualitative comparisons are tough to assign dollar value to. So let’s get back to the union’s compensation comparison. After the two adjustments to Jill’s compensation, she’s at $153,844, 2.6% higher than Greg’s $149,940.
Now let’s suppose that they’re both 50 years old, have 20 years each on the job, and they both retire next week.
Here’s where the big difference happens. Because Jill is 50, she won’t collect any social security for another 15 years – assuming Congress doesn’t raise the age in an attempt to cover its’ bankruptcy of the system. And she will have to find her own health insurance. Meanwhile, Greg will immediately start collecting a retirement income of $75,000 per year from his government retirement plan. He will be allowed to continue in the government health insurance program, and may be eligible for a premium subsidy as well.
When Jill reaches the age where she can get social security income, it’ll likely be around $25,000 per year, a third of Greg’s.
This disparity is because, during their working years, Jill’s employer paid much less money for her retirement than Greg’s employer. In their final year, Jill’s employer paid around $6,500 into social security on her behalf, while Greg’s employer paid around $30,000 into PERS on his behalf. If we factor those dollars into each of their respective compensations, now Jill is close to $160,000 and Greg is close to $180,000.
There’s more.
Let’s say in the year 2019, both Jill and Greg’s retirements are interrupted by an attack of angina, and each must have an artery stent installed to live a more comfortable life. Regardless of what insurance either of them have, Nevada state law says that any police or fire retiree has lifelong 100% coverage for all ailments of the heart or lung, so taxpayers will pay for Greg’s operation.
This difference in benefit is funded by taxpayers putting additional dollars into a long-term savings account – something the Chamber does not do for Jill. For purposes of our comparison, this increases Greg’s compensation even further.
The union’s ad in today’s paper is as deceptive as the union coalition has ever been – and that includes all the ads they funded saying state Senator Joe Heck wanted people to get cancer and state Senator Bob Beers wanted teachers to shoot children.
Posted by Webmaster on February 5, 2009 under News
From the latest issue of “The Economist” magazine:
Nevada has long been a low-tax, low-services state. But its culture is changing. The working-class Latinos who have moved there, often from California, are less libertarian and keener on public services than older whites. In November voters in Reno and Las Vegas approved an increase in hotel taxes to pay for schools. They also handed control of the state Senate to Democrats for the first time since 1993. The new political majority will need to keep the state attractive to business. The worst outcome for Nevada is that it acquires California’s taxes and dismal business climate but not its talent pool or coastal breezes.
How embarrasing! A second, though less-respected, national publication gets it wrong about Nevada.
In fact, Nevada’s tax burden, when you include taxes on residents and taxes on Nevadans, holds the 25th rank for services – hardly “low-services”. The Economist will almost certainly not correct it’s error as quickly as the Wall Street Journal last week. That’s what makes them less-respected.
Posted by Webmaster on February 5, 2009 under News
I have always said the only sure thing that comes from overfeeding government is that you increase government’s appetite for more money.
Last week, the Wall Street Journal noted the same phenomenon:
The states with the biggest deficits tend to be the most profligate. California has by far the biggest gap — $40 billion — thanks in part to a 40% increase in spending over the last five years. Arizona, Florida and Nevada also have deficits of roughly 20% of their operating budget; each of these states allowed their expenditures to grow by more than 50% faster than the average state budget over the last decade.
Posted by Webmaster on January 24, 2009 under News
Most of us Nevadans who have watched the exceedingly embarrassing behavior of Jim Rogers’ son Perry (here and here, look for the bad Mr. T impersonator) sadly shake our heads, agreeing that it is not fair for parents to be held to the ethical lapses of their children, no matter how profound. On the other hand, they’re all looking to Jim for ethical cues.
And then Jimbo himself embarrasses all Nevadans with this:
