Nevada Budget Matters -- Tough Choices For Ag Producers Too
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
In Carson City, Nevada Legislators are grappling with the challenge of not having enough funds to spend on the programs that they would like to offer. As part of this situation a group of lawmakers are confronted with the dual and conflicting conundrum of not wanting to support taxes, but still supporting programs that they see as necessary functions that warrant the funding a possible tax increase would provide.
In some ways Nevada farmers and ranchers are also involved in weighing tough choices in regard to services impacted by proposed budget cuts and revenue approaches which might be able to cover the shortfalls. The difference of course is that farmers and ranchers don’t get to make the ultimate decision of whether to establish a tax mechanism to fund the service that might be on the way out without funding.
They do get to decide on whether they are willing to back the funding or accept the potential of the programs going away.
Putting this hypothetical into reality, reductions for Wildlife Services are proposed in the budget offered by Governor Gibbons. If adopted, the on-the-ground specialist in four key areas would be laid off at the start of the new fiscal year in July.
Alternatives do exist for non-government funded predator control measures. A couple of options are also possible for producers to participate in the funding the program through taxes or specific user fees.
Livestock producers should be directly involved in weighing in with their input on support for whether their advocacy organizations should be working in the legislative process to implement a funding system or take a different tract in addressing the situation.
If you’d like to share your thoughts…you’re encouraged to share your comments and ideas here on how you believe the matter should be worked on.
In Carson City, Nevada Legislators are grappling with the challenge of not having enough funds to spend on the programs that they would like to offer. As part of this situation a group of lawmakers are confronted with the dual and conflicting conundrum of not wanting to support taxes, but still supporting programs that they see as necessary functions that warrant the funding a possible tax increase would provide.
In some ways Nevada farmers and ranchers are also involved in weighing tough choices in regard to services impacted by proposed budget cuts and revenue approaches which might be able to cover the shortfalls. The difference of course is that farmers and ranchers don’t get to make the ultimate decision of whether to establish a tax mechanism to fund the service that might be on the way out without funding.
They do get to decide on whether they are willing to back the funding or accept the potential of the programs going away.
Putting this hypothetical into reality, reductions for Wildlife Services are proposed in the budget offered by Governor Gibbons. If adopted, the on-the-ground specialist in four key areas would be laid off at the start of the new fiscal year in July.
Alternatives do exist for non-government funded predator control measures. A couple of options are also possible for producers to participate in the funding the program through taxes or specific user fees.
Livestock producers should be directly involved in weighing in with their input on support for whether their advocacy organizations should be working in the legislative process to implement a funding system or take a different tract in addressing the situation.
If you’d like to share your thoughts…you’re encouraged to share your comments and ideas here on how you believe the matter should be worked on.
Comments