More On Nevada’s Budget Picture
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
As the Nevada Legislative committees, responsible for sorting through and taking action on the state’s budget, begin their work for the 2009 session, the myths of shortfalls and requirements for tax increases swirl to the point of most people believing the hype as fact.
In his news article, found in the Las Vegas Sun, David McGrath Schwartz, reported in “THE STATE BUDGET: Let the airing of the budget begin -- Legislative committee begins a weeklong review of governor’s plan”
As a parent of a 5th grader, attending public schools, I would hope that “teachers will talk with parents” about how education could be improved and students might be encouraged to learn more.
I fully understand that the proposed 6 percent reductions in salary are causing teachers, who are responsible for providing for their own families, concern. At the same time I’m not sure that reductions in the number of persons employed – possibly teachers or other state employees – (layoffs and terminations) would necessary be a better solution.
As to “solving” the budget problems with tax increases – we need to clearly understand the calls for tax increases (no firm proposals out there yet, beyond Governor Gibbons’ own proposal for a tax hike) are not based on plugging a significant shortfall in actual money – it’s about funding the increases in Nevada government spending that we’re supposed to believe is without alternative.
We really appreciate the continued work being carried out by the Nevada Policy Research Institute and for the information that they are presenting on a regular basis to help explain the actual situation legislators are going to be working through. In his latest piece, “Dissecting Budget Numbers” Patrick R. Gibbons shines the light of reality of where things stand.
As a regular reader of Chuck Muth and his “Muth’s Truths” blog, we also noted his recent work of sharing the factual details of our state’s budget condition.
We are in strong agreement that tax increases are not the solution that Nevada Legislators should select in addressing the state’s upcoming biennium budget. We are also frustrated that the message that ideas of taxes needing to be raised are based on false perceptions.
Those beating the drums and hoping to incite Nevada citizens to rise up and contact their legislators (expressing support for tax increases – large, small or anywhere in between) need to be met with firm resolve of Nevada citizens asking for an explanation on why increasing government spending is considered to be such an automatic alternative.
How is increased taxes and the consequences of more hardships on those digging deeper into ever-flattening wallets a better choice than setting limits on the growth of government in Nevada?
Along with the insights we hope that will come from a full-fledged public discussion on the state’s budget scenario, we also wish that attention will be directed at finding out what do we get for the money that’s spent now in various line-items.
If lawmakers, with the ability to issue higher tax bills on Nevadans, are going to attempt to justify the increases – we want to clearly understand what we’re going to be getting in return for the money they expect us to hand-over.
As the Nevada Legislative committees, responsible for sorting through and taking action on the state’s budget, begin their work for the 2009 session, the myths of shortfalls and requirements for tax increases swirl to the point of most people believing the hype as fact.
In his news article, found in the Las Vegas Sun, David McGrath Schwartz, reported in “THE STATE BUDGET: Let the airing of the budget begin -- Legislative committee begins a weeklong review of governor’s plan”
“Democrats are hoping for opposition to come from outside the hearings as well, starting tonight (Jan. 22, 2009) with a protest at UNLV against Gibbons’ budget. At public schools in the weeks ahead, teachers will talk to parents about the pay cuts they’re being asked to take. And Democrats hope people who depend on state services will call their legislators.”
As a parent of a 5th grader, attending public schools, I would hope that “teachers will talk with parents” about how education could be improved and students might be encouraged to learn more.
I fully understand that the proposed 6 percent reductions in salary are causing teachers, who are responsible for providing for their own families, concern. At the same time I’m not sure that reductions in the number of persons employed – possibly teachers or other state employees – (layoffs and terminations) would necessary be a better solution.
As to “solving” the budget problems with tax increases – we need to clearly understand the calls for tax increases (no firm proposals out there yet, beyond Governor Gibbons’ own proposal for a tax hike) are not based on plugging a significant shortfall in actual money – it’s about funding the increases in Nevada government spending that we’re supposed to believe is without alternative.
We really appreciate the continued work being carried out by the Nevada Policy Research Institute and for the information that they are presenting on a regular basis to help explain the actual situation legislators are going to be working through. In his latest piece, “Dissecting Budget Numbers” Patrick R. Gibbons shines the light of reality of where things stand.
As a regular reader of Chuck Muth and his “Muth’s Truths” blog, we also noted his recent work of sharing the factual details of our state’s budget condition.
We are in strong agreement that tax increases are not the solution that Nevada Legislators should select in addressing the state’s upcoming biennium budget. We are also frustrated that the message that ideas of taxes needing to be raised are based on false perceptions.
Those beating the drums and hoping to incite Nevada citizens to rise up and contact their legislators (expressing support for tax increases – large, small or anywhere in between) need to be met with firm resolve of Nevada citizens asking for an explanation on why increasing government spending is considered to be such an automatic alternative.
How is increased taxes and the consequences of more hardships on those digging deeper into ever-flattening wallets a better choice than setting limits on the growth of government in Nevada?
Along with the insights we hope that will come from a full-fledged public discussion on the state’s budget scenario, we also wish that attention will be directed at finding out what do we get for the money that’s spent now in various line-items.
If lawmakers, with the ability to issue higher tax bills on Nevadans, are going to attempt to justify the increases – we want to clearly understand what we’re going to be getting in return for the money they expect us to hand-over.
Comments