Trusting The People We Elect
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
As a Nevada lobbyist since 1989 I’ve heard nearly all the disparaging comments uttered about lobbyists – actually most of the time by lobbyists. One of the more interesting observations I’ve ever seen or heard dates back to a long-ago time when smoking was still allowed in the Nevada Legislative building. As a tough session was drawing to a close and the behind the closed door agreements were being finalized an ashtray was circulated with a the wording at the bottom, stating, “Lobbyists are the people we hire to protect us from the people we elect.”
A bit presumptuous – probably, but also an unfortunate fact that continues to prove itself. The post shared by Jon Ralston today (September 23rd) in the Las Vegas Sun, noted that two sides to the taxation debate. One is the well-known “Taxpayer’s Pledge” where the signer promises to not vote or approve of any legislative proposal to raise taxes or invent new ones – on the opposite end of the spectrum, Ralston cited the tax study that the Nevada Legislative Interim Finance Committee is launching, intended as justification for why new sources for taxes need to be located and approved to keep the legislative spenders in their glory.
On one hand, taxpayers wouldn’t need elected representatives to sign anti-tax pledges if they could trust that the gamesmanship of the champions of no-spending limitations engaged in the latest round of studying Nevada’s tax structure. State spending requires taxation – government doesn’t produce any resources other than what they acquire from the private sector. We supposed to believe that things that government spends resources on are noble pursuits and necessary the betterment of our society.
After watching closely the way things went in the 2009 Legislative Session, hearing the comments and pronouncements from the leaders of the party in control of the legislative process – the nobility and essential nature of the spending isn’t quite as evident. You have instead a ever-increasing mindset that a no-limit spending pursuit is required by those in control. Government bureaucrats and those who endorse the backs of government checks appear to be more important to the members of the majority party than the people who have to pay ever-increasing tax burdens to finance the spending. The guise of the new Nevada tax study only solidifies that reality.
Those leading the charge are convinced that if they promote strong enough the needs of government spending (to be the outcome of the stakeholder visioning process – the tax sources identified by the tax consultant will meet up in a package that legislators will be able to portray as the only responsible course they can logically pursue in meeting their legislative duty. Considerations of limiting the areas where spending might be agreed to as a really being essential and figuring out how to keep the focus on delivering accountability for those tax dollars spent are not in the mix. They should be.
I would suggest that more important in protecting us from the people we elect, a limitation on spending would be more appropriate than pledges against taxes. As we saw again in the last legislative session, after the people in charge of the process came out of the closed room deals and spending amounts were decided (with the results being increases in state spending authority) the billion dollar tax increases that they approved was the only outcome that could have occurred.
If we could only trust our elected officials to be responsible for the way they spend money, we wouldn’t have so much trouble not being able to trust them for the way they raise taxes.
As a Nevada lobbyist since 1989 I’ve heard nearly all the disparaging comments uttered about lobbyists – actually most of the time by lobbyists. One of the more interesting observations I’ve ever seen or heard dates back to a long-ago time when smoking was still allowed in the Nevada Legislative building. As a tough session was drawing to a close and the behind the closed door agreements were being finalized an ashtray was circulated with a the wording at the bottom, stating, “Lobbyists are the people we hire to protect us from the people we elect.”
A bit presumptuous – probably, but also an unfortunate fact that continues to prove itself. The post shared by Jon Ralston today (September 23rd) in the Las Vegas Sun, noted that two sides to the taxation debate. One is the well-known “Taxpayer’s Pledge” where the signer promises to not vote or approve of any legislative proposal to raise taxes or invent new ones – on the opposite end of the spectrum, Ralston cited the tax study that the Nevada Legislative Interim Finance Committee is launching, intended as justification for why new sources for taxes need to be located and approved to keep the legislative spenders in their glory.
On one hand, taxpayers wouldn’t need elected representatives to sign anti-tax pledges if they could trust that the gamesmanship of the champions of no-spending limitations engaged in the latest round of studying Nevada’s tax structure. State spending requires taxation – government doesn’t produce any resources other than what they acquire from the private sector. We supposed to believe that things that government spends resources on are noble pursuits and necessary the betterment of our society.
After watching closely the way things went in the 2009 Legislative Session, hearing the comments and pronouncements from the leaders of the party in control of the legislative process – the nobility and essential nature of the spending isn’t quite as evident. You have instead a ever-increasing mindset that a no-limit spending pursuit is required by those in control. Government bureaucrats and those who endorse the backs of government checks appear to be more important to the members of the majority party than the people who have to pay ever-increasing tax burdens to finance the spending. The guise of the new Nevada tax study only solidifies that reality.
Those leading the charge are convinced that if they promote strong enough the needs of government spending (to be the outcome of the stakeholder visioning process – the tax sources identified by the tax consultant will meet up in a package that legislators will be able to portray as the only responsible course they can logically pursue in meeting their legislative duty. Considerations of limiting the areas where spending might be agreed to as a really being essential and figuring out how to keep the focus on delivering accountability for those tax dollars spent are not in the mix. They should be.
I would suggest that more important in protecting us from the people we elect, a limitation on spending would be more appropriate than pledges against taxes. As we saw again in the last legislative session, after the people in charge of the process came out of the closed room deals and spending amounts were decided (with the results being increases in state spending authority) the billion dollar tax increases that they approved was the only outcome that could have occurred.
If we could only trust our elected officials to be responsible for the way they spend money, we wouldn’t have so much trouble not being able to trust them for the way they raise taxes.
Posted by Doug Busselman at 9/23/2009 2:38 PM 
Categories: 2010 Elections
Tags: Nevada Taxes Government Spending Tax Study
Categories: 2010 Elections
Tags: Nevada Taxes Government Spending Tax Study
Comments