It Is Worth Considering And Developing A Plan With The Consequences In Mind
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
The spending by Nevada government has not been able to be sustained by amounts of revenue going into state coffers. This is in spite of state lawmakers setting records in tax increases in the 2003 legislative session and then breaking that record in 2009. The tax increases have proven that more taxes only result in more state spending with requirements for further tax increases in the future.
Dealing with spending is a legitimate and appropriate public conversation that should be taking place. Although it’s being labeled as an unworthy idea, driven only by politics, the idea surfaced by Governor Jim Gibbons to evaluate Nevada’s participation in the federal Medicaid program is very much worth being discussed and weighed. Given the direction of the proposed health payment legislation that is being negotiated behind the closed doors in Washington, D.C. it is certainly valid to see whether continued participation is an affordable option for Nevada. If unfunded mandates, beyond the means of taxpayers to support with current tax levels, can be avoided through proactive actions, taking those actions should be on the table for consideration. The backdoor approach of forcing higher taxes because we-just-can’t-help-it is not an acceptable excuse anymore.
If you’re going to campaign on the merits of wealth redistribution, then be honest that it’s what your vision of government is about. We need to stop having candidates for office tell us that they don’t see tax increases as necessary or appropriate before Election Day and then spend without discretion or an ability to determine that there is nothing which isn’t essential for state dollars.
In addition to exploring the impacts of how discontinuing the Medicaid program will affect those who receive the benefits the consequences for Nevada taxpayers should also be presented for public consumption. All sides of the equation (benefits and costs), with specific details that put numbers into context, for those who get as well as those who will be required to give should be made available.
From the television commercials which are bombarding us on how one candidate for re-election should be worshiped, glorified and “thanked” for his efforts to force the mandated coverage, benefit-limiting, tax-increasing, health care payment legislation through the process – why is the candidate wondering about whether we can afford the magnificence of expanding a federal program out-of-line? That double standard thing seems to cover everything…
The spending by Nevada government has not been able to be sustained by amounts of revenue going into state coffers. This is in spite of state lawmakers setting records in tax increases in the 2003 legislative session and then breaking that record in 2009. The tax increases have proven that more taxes only result in more state spending with requirements for further tax increases in the future.
Dealing with spending is a legitimate and appropriate public conversation that should be taking place. Although it’s being labeled as an unworthy idea, driven only by politics, the idea surfaced by Governor Jim Gibbons to evaluate Nevada’s participation in the federal Medicaid program is very much worth being discussed and weighed. Given the direction of the proposed health payment legislation that is being negotiated behind the closed doors in Washington, D.C. it is certainly valid to see whether continued participation is an affordable option for Nevada. If unfunded mandates, beyond the means of taxpayers to support with current tax levels, can be avoided through proactive actions, taking those actions should be on the table for consideration. The backdoor approach of forcing higher taxes because we-just-can’t-help-it is not an acceptable excuse anymore.
If you’re going to campaign on the merits of wealth redistribution, then be honest that it’s what your vision of government is about. We need to stop having candidates for office tell us that they don’t see tax increases as necessary or appropriate before Election Day and then spend without discretion or an ability to determine that there is nothing which isn’t essential for state dollars.
In addition to exploring the impacts of how discontinuing the Medicaid program will affect those who receive the benefits the consequences for Nevada taxpayers should also be presented for public consumption. All sides of the equation (benefits and costs), with specific details that put numbers into context, for those who get as well as those who will be required to give should be made available.
From the television commercials which are bombarding us on how one candidate for re-election should be worshiped, glorified and “thanked” for his efforts to force the mandated coverage, benefit-limiting, tax-increasing, health care payment legislation through the process – why is the candidate wondering about whether we can afford the magnificence of expanding a federal program out-of-line? That double standard thing seems to cover everything…
Posted by Doug Busselman at 1/15/2010 6:40 AM 
Categories: Nevada Budget
Tags: Nevada Spending Governor Jim Gibbons Medicaid Health Care Reform
Categories: Nevada Budget
Tags: Nevada Spending Governor Jim Gibbons Medicaid Health Care Reform
Comments