Nevada Agriculture’s State Budget Needs
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
Regardless of whether Nevada legislators decide to raise taxes in order to allow for increased spending – or they decide that holding to the current means available should be the course…Nevada agriculture is going to need to figure out some approach for engagement to make certain that identified needs are met.
We can’t help but recognize the merits of Chuck Muth’s suggestion on the need to put your ideas into a formal option for consideration, or keep your complaining to yourself.
Even though a lot of what is spent on programs for Nevada farmers and ranchers does not come from general fund accounts, those areas that are going to be impacted from reductions need to live up to the encouragement of figuring out what you’ve got for an alternative game plan. From there, that game plan needs to be presented in something more proactive fashion than complaining about how bad things might be.
You also can’t complain about not getting to spend as much as you want to spend and hold firmly to the position of “No, we don’t want tax increases either”.
In specific terms, Nevada Farm Bureau has policy which supports the Nevada Department of Agriculture providing the service of administration for the state organic program. We also support carrying out the program operations of the Federal Seed Trade Act, which requires staffing and funding in the Nevada Department of Agriculture to perform these tasks. Plans for reductions in the Governor’s budget proposal covers elimination of the staff position who has been handling these specific areas.
We are quite convinced that it’s not too late to figure out what alternative options might be developed, but getting that (or those) idea(s) into working shape need to be a priority.
From year's gone bye and experiences of pick-up, playground basketball games, the expression was “come strong or don’t come at all – cause you can’t bring that weak stuff in here.” Same goes for the 2009 Nevada Legislature.
Regardless of whether Nevada legislators decide to raise taxes in order to allow for increased spending – or they decide that holding to the current means available should be the course…Nevada agriculture is going to need to figure out some approach for engagement to make certain that identified needs are met.
We can’t help but recognize the merits of Chuck Muth’s suggestion on the need to put your ideas into a formal option for consideration, or keep your complaining to yourself.
Even though a lot of what is spent on programs for Nevada farmers and ranchers does not come from general fund accounts, those areas that are going to be impacted from reductions need to live up to the encouragement of figuring out what you’ve got for an alternative game plan. From there, that game plan needs to be presented in something more proactive fashion than complaining about how bad things might be.
You also can’t complain about not getting to spend as much as you want to spend and hold firmly to the position of “No, we don’t want tax increases either”.
In specific terms, Nevada Farm Bureau has policy which supports the Nevada Department of Agriculture providing the service of administration for the state organic program. We also support carrying out the program operations of the Federal Seed Trade Act, which requires staffing and funding in the Nevada Department of Agriculture to perform these tasks. Plans for reductions in the Governor’s budget proposal covers elimination of the staff position who has been handling these specific areas.
We are quite convinced that it’s not too late to figure out what alternative options might be developed, but getting that (or those) idea(s) into working shape need to be a priority.
From year's gone bye and experiences of pick-up, playground basketball games, the expression was “come strong or don’t come at all – cause you can’t bring that weak stuff in here.” Same goes for the 2009 Nevada Legislature.
Comments