​ 
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Mark Amodei (NV-02) made the following statement after voting for the Fiscal Responsibility Act, legislation that will responsibly raise the debt ceiling into 2025, all while enacting provisions to limit Washington’s irresponsible spending.
 
“I voted to support the Fiscal Responsibility Act because it does what is possible in a divided government to stop the out-of-control spending that has plagued Washington for far too long. It also secures a variety of historic wins that will help create a better future for the American people, many of which would have never seen the President’s desk as standalone pieces of legislation.
 
“Keep in mind, it was just a few weeks ago when President Biden was refusing to negotiate a deal on the debt ceiling. By passing our original debt ceiling bill – the Limit, Save, Grow Act – we were ultimately able to force the President to join us at the negotiating table and finally come to an agreement.
 
“The Fiscal Responsibility Act is a major win for the American people, especially when the alternatives are a clean debt ceiling lift or defaulting on our obligations. No less, the bottom line is, allowing us to go past the debt ceiling deadline would create catastrophic consequences – including strategic weakness, economic weakness, inflationary weakness, and would immediately put Social Security and other entitlement benefits at risk.
 
“Absolutely no disrespect to my colleagues who voted against this bill, but I don’t believe they are looking at the big picture. I also would have liked to pass bigger spending cuts, but the fact is that Republicans only narrowly control one-third of this process. We may wish that we weren’t dealing with President Biden in the White House or a Democrat majority in the Senate, but that is our current reality, and this legislation is what we can get signed into law. Remember, the best way to get more spending cuts in the future is to elect a new president in 2024.
 
“I know there will be conservative opposition to my vote. And before anyone attacks my conservative credentials, remember that Members like Thomas Massie and Jim Jordan are also supporting this bill. Like me, these members realize that we cannot make perfect the enemy of good. I’d rather win by a field goal than not at all.
 
“This legislation is a great first step in returning to fiscal sanity, and I was proud to support it. But our work is far from done. After 15 years of Obama, Biden, and Pelosi enacted policies, it is going to take more than one bill to fix our debt crisis.
 
“The folks lamenting that this bill does not include enough of a check on spending need to watch how we appropriate the federal budget for Fiscal Year 2024. As a reminder, the Fiscal Year 2024 Appropriations process is completely controlled by House Republicans and is an important piece in how we limit spending going forward. And don’t forget, four seats on this committee were given to members of the Freedom Caucus as the result of the 2023 Speaker election.
 
“As an Appropriator in the House, I personally recognize the real work comes now and this bill is just the first step in what will be a long process of reigning in the out-of-control spending rubber-stamped by Democrats year after year. I am committed to reducing the national debt and putting us back on the path of fiscal responsibility.”
 
According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, this bill will cut $2.1 trillion, the largest spending cut in American history.
 
The Fiscal Responsibility Act contains the following provisions:

• Cuts spending year-over-year, including a rollback of non-defense discretionary spending to FY22 levels – while fully funding the Veterans Administration’s medical programs.
• Limits topline federal spending to 1% annual growth for the next 6 years – a massive cut from the Biden budget proposal.
• Enacts work requirements for food stamps and welfare benefits.
• Enacts into law the first ever statutory Administrative Pay-Go to hold President Biden accountable for the full cost of executive rules and regulations.
• Claws back $28 billion in unobligated funding from over 120 different accounts created through COVID spending bills.
• Accelerates projects and cuts costs with the first significant reform to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) since 1982.
• Rescinds the $1.4 billion Democrats and President Biden had planned to use for new tax enforcement agents at the IRS and sets the stage for additional recissions (up to $20 billion) for the IRS over the next two fiscal years.
• Requires borrowers to restart student loan repayments, saving taxpayers an estimated $5 billion per month.
• Ensures full funding for critical veterans' programs and national defense priorities, while preserving Social Security and Medicare.
• Rejects all of President Biden’s $5 trillion in proposed new taxes, new government mandates, and new federal programs. 

 
###

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Representative Mark E. Amodei (NV-02) issued the following statement after being appointed to serve as the Chairman of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee on the U.S. House Committee on Appropriations.
 
“It is an honor to be appointed to Chair the House Appropriations Legislative Branch Subcommittee. In the entire history of the state, Nevada has only sent three of its own to be Appropriations Subcommittee Chairs, and I’m proud to be one of these fortunate few and honored to continue this legacy. On Appropriations, we are tasked with the heavy, yet critical, job of cutting wasteful spending and establishing a fiscally responsible budget. To that end, I look forward to collaboration with my fellow Appropriators and colleagues in Congress as we work towards sensible policy solutions. Thank you, Nevada, for continuing to trust in me to represent you!”
 
Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Kay Granger added “I am pleased to announce that I have appointed Rep. Amodei to serve as Chairman of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee. After serving on the subcommittee for several Congresses, his knowledge and expertise on legislative branch issues will be crucial as the Capitol campus reopens to the public. I have no doubt that Rep. Amodei will continue to serve his constituents and the State of Nevada in this new role, and I look forward to working with him to support the needs of our nation while delivering on our commitment to rein in unnecessary government spending.”
 
Congressman Amodei’s Chairmanship appointment is historic for Nevada. There have only been four Representatives from Nevada on the House Appropriations Committee since Nevada became a state in the 38th Congress, only two of whom were Appropriations Subcommittee Chairs during their tenure. Nearly 90 years ago, Rep. James G. Scrugham (NV-at-Large) served as the Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee of the Navy. In the 1990s, Rep. Barbara F. Vucanovich (NV-02) served as the Chairwoman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction.
 
The Appropriations Committee, established in 1865, has jurisdiction over the federal discretionary budget. This includes everything from defense to agriculture to education to housing to funding for projects in local communities. Given their authority over the budget, Appropriations Subcommittee Chairs are also known as Cardinals.
 
The Legislative Branch Subcommittee has jurisdiction over the functions of Congress; including the Capitol Police, Library of Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Government Accountability Office, Architect of the Capitol, and the House of Representatives.

January 18, 2023


 
 
Amodei Appointed House Appropriations Subcommittee Chair
 
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Representative Mark E. Amodei (NV-02) issued the following statement after being appointed to serve as the Chairman of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee on the U.S. House Committee on Appropriations.
 
“It is an honor to be appointed to Chair the House Appropriations Legislative Branch Subcommittee. In the entire history of the state, Nevada has only sent three of its own to be Appropriations Subcommittee Chairs, and I’m proud to be one of these fortunate few and honored to continue this legacy. On Appropriations, we are tasked with the heavy, yet critical, job of cutting wasteful spending and establishing a fiscally responsible budget. To that end, I look forward to collaboration with my fellow Appropriators and colleagues in Congress as we work towards sensible policy solutions. Thank you, Nevada, for continuing to trust in me to represent you!”
 
Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Kay Granger added “I am pleased to announce that I have appointed Rep. Amodei to serve as Chairman of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee. After serving on the subcommittee for several Congresses, his knowledge and expertise on legislative branch issues will be crucial as the Capitol campus reopens to the public. I have no doubt that Rep. Amodei will continue to serve his constituents and the State of Nevada in this new role, and I look forward to working with him to support the needs of our nation while delivering on our commitment to rein in unnecessary government spending.”
 
Congressman Amodei’s Chairmanship appointment is historic for Nevada. There have only been four Representatives from Nevada on the House Appropriations Committee since Nevada became a state in the 38th Congress, only two of whom were Appropriations Subcommittee Chairs during their tenure. Nearly 90 years ago, Rep. James G. Scrugham (NV-at-Large) served as the Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee of the Navy. In the 1990s, Rep. Barbara F. Vucanovich (NV-02) served as the Chairwoman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction.
 
The Appropriations Committee, established in 1865, has jurisdiction over the federal discretionary budget. This includes everything from defense to agriculture to education to housing to funding for projects in local communities. Given their authority over the budget, Appropriations Subcommittee Chairs are also known as Cardinals.
 
The Legislative Branch Subcommittee has jurisdiction over the functions of Congress; including the Capitol Police, Library of Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Government Accountability Office, Architect of the Capitol, and the House of Representatives.January 18, 2023


 
 
Amodei Appointed House Appropriations Subcommittee Chair
 
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Representative Mark E. Amodei (NV-02) issued the following statement after being appointed to serve as the Chairman of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee on the U.S. House Committee on Appropriations.
 
“It is an honor to be appointed to Chair the House Appropriations Legislative Branch Subcommittee. In the entire history of the state, Nevada has only sent three of its own to be Appropriations Subcommittee Chairs, and I’m proud to be one of these fortunate few and honored to continue this legacy. On Appropriations, we are tasked with the heavy, yet critical, job of cutting wasteful spending and establishing a fiscally responsible budget. To that end, I look forward to collaboration with my fellow Appropriators and colleagues in Congress as we work towards sensible policy solutions. Thank you, Nevada, for continuing to trust in me to represent you!”
 
Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Kay Granger added “I am pleased to announce that I have appointed Rep. Amodei to serve as Chairman of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee. After serving on the subcommittee for several Congresses, his knowledge and expertise on legislative branch issues will be crucial as the Capitol campus reopens to the public. I have no doubt that Rep. Amodei will continue to serve his constituents and the State of Nevada in this new role, and I look forward to working with him to support the needs of our nation while delivering on our commitment to rein in unnecessary government spending.”
 
Congressman Amodei’s Chairmanship appointment is historic for Nevada. There have only been four Representatives from Nevada on the House Appropriations Committee since Nevada became a state in the 38th Congress, only two of whom were Appropriations Subcommittee Chairs during their tenure. Nearly 90 years ago, Rep. James G. Scrugham (NV-at-Large) served as the Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee of the Navy. In the 1990s, Rep. Barbara F. Vucanovich (NV-02) served as the Chairwoman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction.
 
The Appropriations Committee, established in 1865, has jurisdiction over the federal discretionary budget. This includes everything from defense to agriculture to education to housing to funding for projects in local communities. Given their authority over the budget, Appropriations Subcommittee Chairs are also known as Cardinals.
 
The Legislative Branch Subcommittee has jurisdiction over the functions of Congress; including the Capitol Police, Library of Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Government Accountability Office, Architect of the Capitol, and the House of Representatives.
January 18, 2023


 
 
Amodei Appointed House Appropriations Subcommittee Chair
 
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Representative Mark E. Amodei (NV-02) issued the following statement after being appointed to serve as the Chairman of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee on the U.S. House Committee on Appropriations.
 
“It is an honor to be appointed to Chair the House Appropriations Legislative Branch Subcommittee. In the entire history of the state, Nevada has only sent three of its own to be Appropriations Subcommittee Chairs, and I’m proud to be one of these fortunate few and honored to continue this legacy. On Appropriations, we are tasked with the heavy, yet critical, job of cutting wasteful spending and establishing a fiscally responsible budget. To that end, I look forward to collaboration with my fellow Appropriators and colleagues in Congress as we work towards sensible policy solutions. Thank you, Nevada, for continuing to trust in me to represent you!”
 
Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Kay Granger added “I am pleased to announce that I have appointed Rep. Amodei to serve as Chairman of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee. After serving on the subcommittee for several Congresses, his knowledge and expertise on legislative branch issues will be crucial as the Capitol campus reopens to the public. I have no doubt that Rep. Amodei will continue to serve his constituents and the State of Nevada in this new role, and I look forward to working with him to support the needs of our nation while delivering on our commitment to rein in unnecessary government spending.”
 
Congressman Amodei’s Chairmanship appointment is historic for Nevada. There have only been four Representatives from Nevada on the House Appropriations Committee since Nevada became a state in the 38th Congress, only two of whom were Appropriations Subcommittee Chairs during their tenure. Nearly 90 years ago, Rep. James G. Scrugham (NV-at-Large) served as the Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee of the Navy. In the 1990s, Rep. Barbara F. Vucanovich (NV-02) served as the Chairwoman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction.
 
The Appropriations Committee, established in 1865, has jurisdiction over the federal discretionary budget. This includes everything from defense to agriculture to education to housing to funding for projects in local communities. Given their authority over the budget, Appropriations Subcommittee Chairs are also known as Cardinals.
 
The Legislative Branch Subcommittee has jurisdiction over the functions of Congress; including the Capitol Police, Library of Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Government Accountability Office, Architect of the Capitol, and the House of Representatives.

​
I am beyond unhappy (I cleaned that up a lot).  
I saw the report on Tucker tonight and did a Google search.  “Feds raid Amish Farmer”
 
The farmer is Amos Miller in Bird-in-the-Hand, PA.   He has an organic beef and dairy farm with 4,000 clients. 
 
The Feds WITH GUNS raided this farmer when Amish do not possess weapons.  Hello!  Government over reach?!
 
He has since been denied the RIGHT to  sell any of his products AND he has $300k in fines levied against him.  
 
I can’t say for sure, BUT immediately the most influential person who came to mind who would most benefit from shutting food competition is Bill Gates.  He’s pushing “food” that’s not natural.  He’s pushing lowering the population. 
 
Use your grey matter.  Do your own research.  If you didn’t already know, we’re in a battle for the soul of America. There are more attacks on persons of faith, especially.
Anyone who opposes their agenda is an enemy.  Especially Trump and his supporters because he exposed their agenda and he fought against it. They fear him because he’s a threat to their wealth and power.  He’s on to them and they’ve used every tool in their possession to bring him down. 
 
I watched Pelosi on an older video (I think 2017) describe “the Smear Takedown” tactic they use against opponents.  Basically, they “leak” negative untrue info to the Media and then, once the media reports it, they can continue repeating the lie because the media reported it.  The Media gave it credibility.  That’s what has happened repeatedly with Trump.  I keep thinking: If you repeat a lie often enough people begin to accept it as truth. 
 
If you are even remotely considering voting for a Democrat for any office or not voting for Trump, really consider what you may be doing, given their tactics of deception. 
 
There’s a lot about Trump’s personality that I don’t like BUT there’s no denying his sincere love for America and the citizens. All the citizens.  Not just the donor class or wealthy. There’s a reason blacks and Hispanics are coming to the Republican party.   He proved, by his policies, that he cares. No empty unkept promises like they’ve heard for decades. 
THINIK.  
❤️
Nancy Boone
8/23/2022

“With all due respect to my colleagues who voted “no”, no one is fooled by the “vote no, hope yes” culture. The domestic spending portion of the Omnibus is a classic example of that because no one will be championing that they voted against life, against saving border wall money, and against veterans’ programs. Further, livestock producers and the agriculture industry were rescued from burdensome Green New Deal requirements Democrats had insisted on pursing. While there is no such thing as perfect, we think this combination of conservative provisions allows us to continue the fight in the face of the dysfunction of the majority in the House, Senate, and White House.
 
“In this Omnibus package, there are some fundamentally-American results achieved by those of us who didn’t give up the fight, and as a result, produced several policy home runs despite being in the minority. Some of these provisions include:

• An increase of $32.5 billion in funding for the Department of Defense (DOD), including a 2.7% pay raise for our troops;
• An increase of $400 million for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and an increase of $800 million for Customs and Border Protection (CBP), in part to address the crisis at our Southern border;
• A $211 million increase to Wildland Fire Management for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service;
• Allowing for continued domestic energy and mineral development by preventing sage grouse from being listed in the Endangered Species Act (ESA);
• Exempting farmers and ranchers from greenhouse gas permitting and reporting requirements;
• A prohibition on closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and transferring detainees; and
• A prohibition on the use of funds from being used to implement the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, which urges greater record-keeping of lawful firearm owners, moving closer to the left’s long-sought goal of a national firearm ownership registry.

 
“Another successful aspect of this bill is that several Democrat poison pill provisions were eliminated through the conference process between the House and Senate. While it is part of the “woke” agenda of the majority party to remove Hyde Amendment protections, this long-standing amendment was preserved in the Omnibus package, preventing taxpayer dollars from being used to fund abortions. Moreover, anti-energy provisions, which would dramatically further reduce domestic mineral production, and a provision demanded by progressives to cancel $1.9 billion in border wall funding, further fueling the border crisis, were also eliminated.
 
“And because multi-tasking is important, I was also glad to see the inclusion of several Nevada-specific wins that I directly advocated for over the fiscal year:

• All 10 submitted Community Project Funding designations, including funding to purchase emergency responder communications equipment for the cities of Sparks and West Wendover, upgrades to municipal water plants and sewer systems, and pedestrian improvements in Carson City, just to name a few;
• The largest ever appropriations package for Lake Tahoe, including $7 million specifically to improve waterline infrastructure on Highway 50 for wildfire response capabilities;
• Funding to support Nevada-based companies’ technology production, such as the Sierra Nevada Corporation and Rocky Research;
• Funding for the Desert Research Institute (DRI) to carry out studies preventing urban flood damage, hydrological and climate forecasting, and improved data sharing capabilities; and
• Funding to support research activities to improve geothermal and solar efficiency production, both of which have a strong presence in Nevada’s energy grid.

 
“As I’ve said repeatedly, the dysfunction of the majority party in Congress is off the charts. Although long overdue in its passage, now that Fiscal Year 2022 deck has been cleared with this vote, I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee to secure funding for many more Nevada priorities again in Fiscal Year 2023, all while pushing back against provisions that serve a far-left, political agenda.”

​With Nevada’s Congressional delegates facing votes on President Joe Biden’s proposed income tax increases, questions of wealth and income distribution, tax fairness, economic growth and economic mobility have become central in public debate.
This column focuses on literature and empirical studies on economic mobility, showing there is still substantial economic mobility from generation to generation and within almost all individuals’ lives.  It is not true, as so often claimed, that the rich reap all the gains from economic growth and the poor get left in the mud.
Three recent columns posted on the web site of the Nevada Policy Research Institute (NPRI; NevadaPolicy.org) address tax fairness and income and wealth distribution in the U.S.  They show inequality has not increased over recent decades and American income taxes have become ever more progressive in this century, including with the 2017 Trump tax reforms.
Together with a forthcoming column on the impacts of income tax increases on economic growth and a final synthesis of the five columns, these articles provide a sound economic and policy basis for deciding on the proposed tax increases.  In short, America will build back better by rejecting them.
Daniel J. Mitchell is an economist specializing in fiscal policy, particularly tax reform and the burden of government spending.  November 26, 2018, he summarized the mobility literature in “Income Mobility Data Show America Still Very Much the Land of Opportunity,” published by the Foundation for Economic Education.
He begins, “I generally don’t write much about the distribution of income …, largely because that feeds the false notion that the economy is a fixed pie and that politicians should have the power to re-slice it if they think incomes aren’t sufficiently equal.  I think growth is far more important, especially for poor people …”
Economist Robert J. Samuelson wrote “The myth of stagnant incomes” in the Washington Post November 18, 2018.  He cited research by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) that he called “arguably the most comprehensive tabulation of Americans’ incomes.”  It showed, “most Americans had experienced clear-cut income gains since the early 1980s.”
He noted the CBO study showed the lowest- and highest-income fifths of Americans enjoyed real income gains of about 80 percent in 1979-2015.  The other three-fifths experienced 50 percent income gains.  These gains, especially for the poor, occurred after the turn of the century, as well as before it.  The CBO data include after-tax incomes, government transfer payments (such as Medicare, food stamps, etc.), and employer-paid health insurance, as is correct.
An October 23, 2017 Economic Letter from the Federal Reserve Board of San Francisco, “Missing the Growth from Creative Destruction,” explains a systemic problem in most inequality studies also noted in two of the three papers posted at NPRI.  Namely, they rely on “cross-section,” not “panel” data.  Thus, they compare the experiences of different groups of people at the beginning and end years, instead of the actual differences for a single group of real people over the period.
Even studies by famed economist Raj Chetty are subject to this weakness.  When this methodological error is corrected, income and wealth disparities and alleged trends of increases in disparities over time disappear.
In the October 23, 2018 paper “Do the Rich Get All the Gains from Economic Growth?” Professor Russ Roberts makes the same point about panel studies reflecting the actual experience of real people versus disparate groups at different times.
Data from Professor Mark Rank in an April 18, 2014 New York Times column showed 12 percent of people found themselves in the top income one percent at least once in 35 years.  Likewise, 39 percent in at least one year in the top five percent; 56 percent in the top ten percent at least one year; and 73 percent in the top 20 percent at least one year.
U.S. economic mobility is great and America is indeed the land of opportunity.
Ron Knecht is a Senior Fellow at NPRI. Email RonKnecht@aol.com.

​President Joe Biden and Congressional Democrats, claiming concern about economic inequality in America, want to raise taxes greatly on the wealthy.  To understand key issues with their proposals, let’s first review the facts and trends around income inequality.
The major source for inequality claims was Capital in the Twenty-first Century, a 2014 tome by Thomas Piketty.  Although he subsequently walked back some of his major claims from that book and some data on which he relied, he and his collaborators have published papers since then trying to prove inequality has increased disturbingly in recent decades.
Fortunately, economists John Cochrane and Scott Lincicome have summarized recent research on the subject by a number of economists, and it debunks those claims.  They cite four main issues with the analyses by the inequality advocates.
First, their data omit significant kinds of income and erroneously include some non-income such as unrealized capital gains.  Second, they use pre-tax income and overlook income transfers (government payments and subsidies).  Third, they focus on family incomes, although family sizes have changed over time, meaning incomes should be computed on an individual basis.  Finally, they overlook benefits such as employer-provided insurance that have grown over time.
Correcting for these problems yields a very different picture than the one tax-hikers claim.  For example, Piketty and Co. claim the incomes, including capital gains, of America’s wealthiest one percent were roughly constant just below ten percent of the total from 1960 to the mid-1980s and then doubled to the present day.
Deducting unrealized capital gains, and adjusting for taxes and transfers, Gerald Auten and David Splinter find the incomes of the richest one percent declined in 1960-1990.  Then they rose until 2008, before settling back today to the roughly nine percent level of 60 years ago.  So much for claims the economic gains of recent decades were captured by FDR’s “malefactors of great wealth”.
They also show that post-tax/transfer upper and middle incomes have been roughly constant, with the lowest incomes rising.  And the highest incomes are much lower on a post-tax/transfer basis, with middle incomes slightly higher and the lowest incomes significantly higher.
Reinforcing these measures, estimates by Phil Gramm and John Early of overall income equality in the half-century 1967-2017 were roughly constant when measured post-tax/transfer.  A group of academic economists found essentially similar results for 1959-2016.  And Scott Winship found the only significant increase in inequality since 1947 was in the 1980s.
Lincicome summarizes: “In short, American income inequality basically disappears when you consider government policies and the actual financial resources (post-tax/transfer) available to the poor and middle class, instead of just the top line of their paychecks. … To argue we need more government interventions to fix an “income inequality” that exists only in the absence of current government interventions is misleading (at best).”
Per capita transfer payments doubled in real terms in 1974-2018, significantly dropping labor-force participation among the poorest.  They’ll increase further under the Democrats’ proposed legislation.
Lincicome adds, “Definitional problems also pervade the debate about the supposedly declining share of national income going to workers (the ‘labor share’) versus the owners of capital (the ‘capital share’) – another common target of the populist right and left.”
Erika York explains that adjusting for taxes and replacement of worn-down assets (depreciation) results in a much different picture of historical trends in net capital and labor income earned by people in the U.S.  The labor share, almost 70 percent, has been rising slightly since 1929, while the capital share, slightly above 30 percent, has been declining, according to data from Benjamin Bridgman and Matthew Rognile.
Donald Schneider, using Rognile’s latest data, finds no decoupling of pay and productivity since 1948 – a trend often claimed to show that too powerful capital is suppressing the incomes of weak, un-unionized American workers.  A National Bureau of Economic Research paper concurs, citing labor compensation via equity grants and stock options.
And when labor shares are adjusted to reflect changes in the Bureau of Economic Analysis’ accounting, they rose until World War II and have been essentially constant since then.
Finally, before increasing taxes on America’s wealthy, populists should consider that they pay about 44 percent of income taxes, versus about 30 percent in France, Germany and Sweden.
Ron Knecht is a Nevada Policy Research Institute Senior Fellow, President of the NevadaWins PAC, and former state controller and higher education regent. Email RonKnecht@aol.com. 

​President Joe Biden has whispered into public microphones a few times recently that the wealthy should “pay their fair share” of federal taxes.
And what share would that be, Mr. President?
Of course, he doesn’t say what it should be.  Nor even gives a hint of what their shares are now.  That’s normal, though.  When people say the rich should pay their fair share, they really mean we should increase taxes on those folks regardless of what their rates now are.
So, I’ll provide facts and data on those rates, as I’ve done in the past.  The Tax Foundation (TF), using the official statistics from the Internal Revenue Service, has published the key data for 2018, the latest year for which tax data are available.  TF summarizes: “the U.S. individual income tax continued to be progressive, borne primarily by the highest income earners.”
As the details show, that’s an understatement.  The individual income tax was highly progressive by 2001 and has gotten distinctly more so this century.  Even after the 2017 tax cuts passed by President Donald Trump and Congress in 2017, “average tax rates fell across every income group.”  And proportionately, they fell more for the lower income groups than the higher ones.
Here are the specifics.  The top one percent of earners (those earning more than $540,009 adjusted gross income) paid 33.2 percent of total taxes in 2001, but that rose to 40.1 percent, its highest level this century, in 2018.  The proportion paid by folks between one percent and ten percent of income earners rose slightly.  However, all folks below that top ten percent paid less of the total than the top decile each of those 17 years.  In fact, the amount paid by the bottom half of income earners (earning less than $43,614) declined most: from 4.9 percent to 2.9 percent.
The tax share paid by the top one percent of earners, 40.1 percent, exceeded greatly the share paid by the bottom 90 percent combined, 28.6 percent.  And the top one percent paid a 25.4 percent average income tax rate, while the bottom 50 percent paid one-seventh that rate, 3.4 percent.  Across the scale, as income increases, the tax rate paid increases substantially.
Now, what was that, Mr. President, about people paying their fair share?  Warren Buffet may trumpet (brag or complain) that he pays a lower rate than his secretary, but that’s only an anecdote.  When you look at the full range of data, Mr. Buffet’s story is highly unrepresentative of the central facts.
Perhaps someone will answer that the rich have taken an ever greater share of income and that caused their tax contributions to rise.  As explained below, that’s not true, either, because the income share of the top one percent has fluctuated with business cycles.  The high point for the income of the top one percent of earners as a share of the total was in 2007, at nearly 23 percent.
In 2018, rich folks’ share of income fell to 20.9 percent from 21 percent the year before.  But their share of federal income taxes in that same year rose from 38.5 percent to 41 percent.  So, even the Trump tax cuts were highly progressive, contrary to claims of their opponents.
In sum, the rich – the top ten percent by income – paid 71.4 percent of total taxes, while everybody else – the bottom 90 percent, including the upper middle class – paid only 28.6 percent.  Thus, the rich ten percent of the population paid 22.5 times as much of the total tax bill each as the bottom 90 percent of earners.  Is 22.5-to-1 fair?
Two final points.  The level of per-capita government transfer payments, as a share of U.S. median personal income, is nearly three times as high now as in 1974.  Taxing the rich has led to very high subsidies for many others.
Second, as summarized in a recent extensive analysis by Scott Lincicome, “Whether it’s income, ‘labor share,’ or wealth, numerous studies by respected academics rebut the scary headlines and beltway conventional wisdom about rampant inequality in the United States. … the increase in inequality since the Good Old Days … has been, at best, non-existent and at worst, moderate …”
Ron Knecht is a Nevada Policy Research Institute Senior Policy Fellow, President of the Nevada Wins PAC, and former State Controller and higher education Regent.  RonKnecht@aol.com.

As Ben Franklin left the Constitutional Convention on September 17, 1787, he was asked what kind of government we would have.  “A Republic,” he replied, “if you can keep it.”
The Founders addressed that and other challenges by establishing checks and balances among three branches of the federal government and between it and the states.
The Constitution’s fostering of the rule of law, individual liberties, economic freedom and other important protections for human flourishing withstood a number of assaults, including the Civil War, for nearly 100 years.  Then, from Otto von Bismarck’s Germany, came progressivism.
It first took root here with the 1883 Pendleton Act, which provided that some federal jobs be awarded based on merit and their employees be selected via competitive exams.  It also made unlawful the firing or demotion for political reasons of employees covered by the act – ending half a century of the political “spoils” system.  Now, civil service covers most federal employees.
All that seemed perfectly reasonable at first, as so many reforms do.
With the rise of labor unions, public employees suggested they should be able to collectively bargain for pay and terms.  But in 1937, President Franklin Roosevelt, a strong supporter of organized labor, drew the line.  He said collective bargaining had “insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management.”  Employee groups can’t be considered equals for collective bargaining to the People as a whole, represented by Congress.
In 1960, two percent of state and local employees had collective bargaining; it was 63 percent by 2010.  Now in many states, public employee unions are the tail that wags the policy dog, especially via election contributions.  The public interest is subordinated to this special interest that is as predatory on the public, liberty and growth as it’s allowed by politicians to be.
Back to 1887: progressives created the Interstate Commerce Act to federally regulate railroads’ monopolistic practices, followed by anti-trust law.  Public utility regulation began to replace legislative acts at the federal, state and local levels, reaching transportation, telecommunication, energy, water services and others.  At all three levels, environmental, public health and safety, labor, financial, economic and other regulation has proliferated right up to the present.
Again, it all seemed so reasonable at first.  However, a massive body of rigorous academic literature has documented the capture of regulators to serve the purposes of regulated firms and their investor and labor special interests at the expense of the public and consumer interests and to the disadvantage of new firms, technologies and innovations.
All this delegation of governmental power to mostly unelected political bodies has been termed the modern administrative (or regulatory) state.  With the approval often of courts, these agencies have developed what are called quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers – exercising the power of law without legislative action, executive concurrence or even much judicial oversight.
Today’s federal Environmental Protection Agency even seeks to regulate home building by owners of properties where minor mud puddles appear after rains, even though the mudflats have no direct connection to the navigable waters of the United States.  And some state governors mandate Covid-19 shots capriciously.  (I’ve had my two jabs and recommend them for you too.)
As this massive complex of bureaucracies has metastasized, it has diminished economic growth and freedom and thus, arguably, human flourishing and aggregate wellbeing.  And we are all cramped daily by administrative state.  But wait!  There’s more.
Sixty years ago, stakeholder analysis was developed to describe relationships of private firms and governments to special interests affected by their policies and practices.  Soon, this morphed into “stakeholder theory,” which posits that firms owe duties to stakeholders comparable to their basic fiduciary duties to investors.  It holds governments owe duties to special interests comparable to those owed to the citizenry as a whole, taxpayers and the public interest.
So now, among legions of examples, we have oppressive occupational licensing requirements, free speech suppression, tax-hiking prevailing wage laws, government-sanctioned racial discrimination and very uneconomic domestic shipping regulations.  It well may be the cumulative effect of all this has become unbearable to people and untenable for normal commerce.
Ron Knecht is a Nevada Policy Research Institute Senior Policy Fellow and former state controller, higher education regent, senior economist, college teacher and legislator.  Contact: RonKnecht@aol.com. ​

President Ronald Reagan said the problem with liberals is less the things they don’t know and more the things they “know” that aren’t so.  A recent opinion piece in the Reno newspaper illustrates his point perfectly, plus reasons liberals and progressives are so wrong about so much.
Jim Hightower, journalist, progressive Democrat activist and former elected Texas Agriculture Commissioner, wrote, “for decades, national and state lawmakers have flaunted their ignorance of what makes a good society by stupidly shortchanging our investment in our youngest minds.”
Nowhere in that column does he provide any real evidence, let alone numbers, to show education and childcare are underfunded in the U.S.  Note also another habit of so many liberals, Democrats, progressives and journalists: bashing by labeling, also without evidence, anyone who disagrees with them as stupid, ill-intentioned and “deplorable.”
He adds, “At the same time, corporate and government policymakers have intentionally rigged our economic and political systems to hold down workers’ incomes even while their living expenses rise.”  He continues in this vein, with wholly unsupported, false claims and hateful vituperation.  For example, he labels our present practices on childcare and education as “we don’t care” policies.
Ultimately, he advocates that childcare be wholly the province of government subsidy or direct provision based on a very limited World War II program that subsidized pre-school childcare for the Rosie the Riveter families.  Apparently, he, other Democrats and progressives think the raising of children can’t be left to mere parents but must be handled by government and away-from-home institutions.
Another day, I’ll address what a failure that approach has been.  For now, let’s focus on the funding of K-12 education.
I addressed education in 2019 in my last Controller’s Annual Report, using data that’s still the latest available.  Referring to international data on student achievement and spending, I noted the U.S. spent $12,176 per student per year, or fourth most in the world, but ranked 23rd among 79 nations in achievement.
Compared to our $12,176 per student, Japan, the top achieving nation, spent only $9,934, or 82 percent as much.  The next four achievement-ranking countries were Estonia ($6,991, or 57 percent), Canada ($10, 440, or 86 percent), Finland ($9,779, or 80 percent) and Korea ($10,030, or 82 percent).  The average for 34 advanced economies was $9,302, or 76 percent.
Further, we spent $8.32 per scoring point in the rankings while then top five countries spent between $4.44 and $6.65, with $6.30 as the average for the 34 advanced countries.  In short, we spend a lot and get little from our primarily government-run schools.  So, the problem is not spending, but instead the performance of our schools.
Other data compiled by NPRI show that American real (inflation-adjusted) total education spending has soared 192 percent since the 1970s, but mathematics achievement has risen only two percent and reading only 0.7 percent.  Further spending per state per student has long shown little to no statistical correlation with student achievement.
The dominance of labor unions in educational policy and spending, especially among Democrats, is a major cause of our educational failure, because their interests conflict with those of students, parents, taxpayers and the public.  This is demonstrated by the fact the real cost per pupil rose 256 percent from 1970 to 2018, driven mainly by per-pupil increases of 252 percent in non-teaching staff (especially the diversity bureaucracy and other administrators) and 157 percent in number of teachers. 
Nevada student achievement lags that in nearby comparable states that spend less than we do, too.  Over 100 Clark County schools have for years received failing grades from the state.  Yet, school officials claim the district hasn’t had a single ineffective principal or administrator for at least the last four years!
Thus, the increases in spending and number of staff (mainly union members) per pupil have not significantly improved student achievement.  But they have benefited the providers in education and throughout the public sector.  Real and popular reforms work, including parental choice, high quality teachers, technology-assisted learning, performance pay for teachers and real accountability.  But unions oppose them.
Liberals, Democrats, progressives and unions live on narratives, memes, false assertions and hate-driven attacks against those who disagree.  Not facts and data.
Ron Knecht is a Senior Policy Fellow at the Nevada Policy Research Institute (NPRI) and formerly State Controller, a higher education Regent, Senior Economist, college teacher and Assemblyman.  Contact him at RonKnecht@aol.com.  ​

​Our friend Frederic Marc Weinberg, Chief Executive Officer of USA Radio Networks and Nevada Radio LLC, passed away September 23 in Sparks NV after a few months of illness.  He was a great American, outstanding radio executive and fine person.
Fred was born in Albuquerque, New Mexico March 17, 1952, the son of Rose and Dr. Philip Weinberg.  Dr. Weinberg moved the family to Peoria IL in 1956, when he joined the faculty of Bradley University.
Fred attended Richwoods High School in Peoria, where he developed a love of photography and sports reporting.  He flew with the Civil Air Patrol and worked as a stringer for the Peoria Journal Star before heading off to college at Southern Illinois University.  He returned to Peoria to study journalism at Bradley.  He became involved with WCBU, the campus radio station, where he was station manager.
Fred took a detour from broadcasting in 1975 for careers at the Penny Press Peoria Newspaper, E. F. Hutton, and ownership of Three Worlds Disco.  He also tried his hand in the oil business and did a stint with ABC TV before deciding to get back into the business he loved -- r adio.
Weinberg owned stations in Claremore/Tulsa, Oklahoma and Las Vegas, Nevada.  He put together a chain of small radio stations across Nevada before joining USA Radio Networks in 2016.  He bought out that business in 2018 and ran it as CEO until his death.
USA Radio Networks provides long - form radio shows and news to more than 400 stations across the country.  They also run stations in Dallas, Phoenix and Cedar Rapids, IA.  Weinberg also published the Penny Press Nevada, a conservative weekly online newspaper , and worked with conservative political causes in his spare time.
He was known to broadcasters and politicians across the country.  Sometimes boisterous and often opinionated, he always had a deal working. Two cellphones and a laptop seemed to be attached to his body.  Fred was loyal to a fault , and his employees stuck with him through many stations and opportunities, good times and bad.
Fred met his wife Charlotte Alarid in Las Vegas in 1999.  They married in Hawaii in 2004.  She survives, as well as his step-children , Randi and Stephen Alarid, both in Reno.  Weinberg is also survived by sisters Susan Weinberg (Martin Arend) and Andrea Weinberg-Chestnut, two nieces and two great-nephews.
TALKERS founder Michael Harrison said, “Fred Weinberg was an outstanding example of the special breed of radio station owner/operator that has kept this increasingly corporatized industry rooted in its communities and accessible to entrepreneurial business visionaries motivated by their love of the medium.”
Janet Bro said, “Fred was one of the smartest guys in the business.  In 1974, Fred’s father, dean of engineering at Bradley University, fired him from his position as station manager at campus radio WCBU-FM where he worked.  He told him, ‘If you want your own effin radio station, go buy your own effin radio station.’  So, Fred did and never looked back.”
We shall miss him.
A memorial service will be held in Carson City on November 6; the location will be announced soon.  In lieu of flowers, the family requests donations to the Weinberg Family Scholarship fund at Bradley University in Fred’s name.  https://www.bradley.edu/giving/ .
Ron Knecht, MS, JD & PE(CA) is a Senior Policy Fellow at the Nevada Policy Research Institute and former State Controller.  Janet Bro, USA Radio Networks Chief Operating Officer, was Fred’s friend for 48 years.  Contact Ron at RonKnecht@aol.com.