All middle-class people should look carefully at Nevada (2nd lowest tax burden in the country) to see their future under the Republican mantra of "lower taxes" and "less government." Nevada is the poster child of "lower taxes, less government" and -- apparently -- not a place where businesses would choose to locate.

Republican administrations have overseen the redistribution of wealth since Ronald Reagan set our country on the road to decline in 1980. Since that time, wealth has been grabbed out of the hands of the middle class and placed in the pockets of the wealthy.

Want the financial facts? Read the excellent series on Income Inequality at: http://www.slate.com/id/2266025/entry/22...

Excerpt from http://www.slate.com/id/2266025/entry/22...
"Another compelling reason to focus on taxation is that income-tax policy has changed very dramatically during the last 30 years. Before Ronald Reagan's election in 1980, the top income tax bracket stood at or above 70 percent, where it had been since the Great Depression. (In the 1950s and the Mad Men early 1960s, the top bracket exceeded 90 percent!) Throughout the Great Compression, as the economy boomed and income inequality dwindled, the top bracket resided at a level that even most Democrats would today call confiscatory. Reagan dropped the top bracket from 70 percent to 50 percent, and eventually pushed it all the way down to 28 percent. Since then, it has hovered between 30 percent and 40 percent. If President Obama lets George W. Bush's 2001 tax cut expire for families earning more than $250,000, as he's expected to do, Tea Partiers will call him a Bolshevik. But at a whisker under 40 percent (up from 35), the top bracket would remain 30 to 50 percentage points below what it was under Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford."

Want your children and grandchildren to be poorer? Easy, vote Republican.

People may lie about the data, but the data don't lie. There is an excellent series of essays on the topic of income disparity in the United States; evaluating economic data from around 1915 through 2008. The middle class began losing ground starting about 1980, with Ronald Reagan... and the redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy has been occurring ever since. The data show that the middle class (and everyone, in general) does better economically under Democratic administrations than under Republican administrations. This runs counter to the belief that Republicans handle economic issues better than the Democrats; the data clearly show otherwise.... and this also leads one to wonder why anyone earning less than $1 million/year would vote to make their lives economically more difficult. Why would any middle-class person vote Republican?

http://www.slate.com/id/2266025/entry/22...

And, for Terry Harris; did you know that Osama bin Laden's goal was to cause the financial collapse of the United States? The Republicans and Tea Partiers are the ones who have been working to achieve bin Laden's goal. The Great Recession had its roots in a LACK of effective government regulation of the financial sector... so why are Republicans now calling for EVEN LESS government regulation? bin Laden is smiling in his grave. Welcome to third-world America.

Dear MLind2020,
You suggested that state workers pay more for health insurance. Be informed that increase has already taken place. Premium costs for state employees were more than doubled (130% increase) this year.

Also note that the state pension system is "self-funded," with state workers paying into this plan. (Taxpayers account for only 20% of the pension fund!) State employees do not pay into (or receive) Social Security. Instead, state employees pay into their own pension fund. See http://www.nvpers.org/public/documentati...

Also, if you believe the report by the LVRJ (May 10, 2009), you'll see that state employees are generally receiving salaries similar to private sector... with a few notable exceptions. Engineers employed by the state receive salaries that are about 30% less than those in the private sector. See http://www.lvrj.com/news/44667817.html

All told, state employees are:
(1) not highly paid
(2) pay into their own pension fund
(3) have already undergone a 4.6% tax hike (i.e., pay cut)
(4) have seen their health insurance premiums more than double
(5) Nevadans too

It would be good to have productive discussions instead of misinformation from contributors to these news stories.

Gregory,
Good posting. Sad but true; the Republicans are marvelous in getting working people to vote against their own economic interests. You can bet any Republican bill does the opposite of its title: "Clear Skies Inititative" (read: polluters are allowed to increase toxic emissions); "Consumer Protection Act" (read: personal bankruptcies no longer protect you from big corporations); Patriot Act (read: no representative could vote against this... why, it would be unpatriotic(!), regardless of the junk that is really in the bill); No New Taxes (read: we'll drive down wages, give tax breaks to billionaires, and the "little people" are on their own).

ecm
Not so good. You state..."The legislators gleefully over road [sic] him, and increased taxes. Their efforts did not work so now it is obvious the Governor is a loser. Critical thinking at it's [sic] worst."
Are you a graduate of Nevada public schools?

Patrick,

It is true. And your assumption about "expensive benefits" is incorrect. In addition to a 4.6% pay cut (tax increase) for state employees, employee contributions for health care were increased by 130%. And, as I noted previously, my health care benefits while I was in the private sector were actually better than my health care benefits with the state.

As for the "generous pension" benefit, please read the article on PERS (link below). Taxpayers only contribute about 20% to the cost of the pension, which is self funded by state employees, with return on investment contributing about 60%.
http://www.nvpers.org/public/documentati...

"From 1998 to 2007, investment earnings accounted for 57.8% of system revenues, with employer contributions comprising 20.6% and employee contributions 21.6%."

And, as for teachers, state employees did not reap rewards from Nevada's boom bubble. No big bonuses at the end of the year. If you're lucky, there may have been a cost-of-living adjustment, but that's about it.

Teachers and state employees are simply an easy target for Gibbons and others. Without a state income tax, Nevada's current tax structure is regressive. Making more cuts is not a real solution; enacting an equitable and progressive tax structure is.

cnev,

I agree that we do need an equitable tax structure. But, I disagree on the lumping together of city and county workers with state workers.

What the Sun points out that "public sector" employees are well-paid, and fails to clarify that state workers salaries are comparable to or less than those of private sector workers in the same occupation. It's the city and county government workers (not the state workers) who you could say were overpaid relative to private sector workers.

Check out the graph in the Las Vegas Review Journal in the May 10, 2009 story entitled "Salaries Questioned." You'll see that state (red bar on graph) engineers make about 30% less than county, city, and private sector engineers. If you trust the numbers portrayed on the LVRJ's graph, you'll see that lumping state employees in with city and county employees hides the real numbers.

Let's top it off even better. The Division I work for gets about 1% (yes, one percent) of salaries funded by the State's general fund. Most of our salaries come from Federal grants and fees. So, cutting our salaries by 5 to 6% (that's a mighty hefty tax increase for 1% of Nevadans, wouldn't you say?) actually hurts Nevada's economy because we have less money to spend (!) and, there is essentially no benefit to the state's budget!

So, let's set the record straight, and stop comparing apples and oranges. State employees are not overpaid relative to the private sector (which I worked in for a number of years), but you can't make that argument for city and county workers. Oh, and by the way, my benefits were actually better in my private sector jobs than in my state job.

You could argue that I took a 30% pay cut in exchange for greater job security, but don't go telling me that I'm now overpaid with extravagant benefits. It just isn't true.

jfnance,
Re: your response to The_Onion.
1. The true costs of coal and offshore drilling are not included in their price to consumers. Conservation of existing fossil energy supplies offers a much bigger and cheaper resource than coal, nuclear, or offshore drilling combined. Besides which, the US doesn't have sufficient oil reserves (even in ANWR) to appreciably affect the price at the pump.
2. The cost of federal tax per gallon of gas is 18 cents; whereas the recent cost increase in gasoline due to investors (current "commodity bubble") is about 80 cents per gallon. (Yes, these are the same rapacious investors that brought us the recent "housing bubble"). The_Onion is correct that taxes on these finite fossil resources should increase to reflect their true value and true environmental costs.
3. You misread The_Onion's comment. It is Oil and Gas (not renewables) that have been the beneficiary of billions of dollars of subsidies over the past 50 years. The_Onion suggests diverting this subsidy money to renewables.

With renewables, it is the "economies of scale" that need to come into play. As more PV panels, wind turbines, and electric cars are produced, the more these costs will come down. The US can be a leader in renewable technology, or a dinosaur. So, let's exit the Mesozoic and enter the future!
sam55

The angry name-calling in these comments never ceases to amaze me. How about a civil discussion instead?
It is the devaluation of the dollar (interest rate cuts) that has really ramped up our costs at the pump. Combine that with the current "commodities bubble" (brought to us by the same investors who gave us the "housing bubble"), and you have increases in energy costs. Commodities speculation has increased gasoline costs by least 80 cents per gallon, so stop blaming folks who are trying to wean us away from the use of fossil fuels. The cheapest and quickest way to extend fossil energy reserves is to promote conservation AND alternative renewable energy. Americans have no inherent right to consume 25% of the world's energy.
The "drill more here" proponents are mistaken if they think that will help. For example, the most optimistic estimates of oil reserves in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) state that it would provide us 3 years of our oil consumption (it would take 30 years and untold environmental damage to extract it, however). Geologists know that we simply do not have the oil reserves we need in this country. Besides which, one could argue that we should consume everyone else's energy first and save ours for the future!
So please, let's be civil in this discussion, let's stop blaming those people who care about the future of the world, and let's stop putting misinformation out there.
We must begin paying the true cost for our fuel, and that is $4 per gallon or more for gasoline. Americans need to be more energy aware, drive less, drive more efficient vehicles, and think about the kind of world we'd like our grandkids to inherit.
Thanks, sam55