No, You Can’t Have It Both Ways
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
As an advocate for limited government, who has not made it much of a secret for not wanting to see taxes increased, a number of our regular readers (and those who have made a point of clicking on our address for the attention we’ve been giving the proposal for the closure of the Nevada College of Agriculture, Biotechnology and Natural Resources) – the suggestion has been made that perhaps I was “sucking and blowing at the same time.” (This was an adage of a cranky old boss who didn’t have much time for those who wanted things both ways.)
Because all one has to do to check on my positions is scroll down, you will see the posts that I have made regarding the proposal to close CABNR as well as close the Main Station Farm (likely selling it off for the right price down the road). One could take the perspective from these posts that the decision to propose closing was not welcomed with open arms, however, I believe if you check closely…at no point in these posts did I say that closing CABNR was not an appropriate action for the University administration to take. You can also go through the archives to find a very clear and consistent point of view against tax increases.
With regard to the proposed closure of CABNR, I have stressed that there should be consequences for choosing to not have a College of Agriculture…I have pointed out that the Nevada Constitution says we should have a College of Agriculture…I have indicated that without a College of Agriculture and meaningful agricultural research program, the principles of a Land Grant University were dubious – but, and I’m still checking my past work…did I ever say that closing the College should be off limits for those who need to make the choices that are required of them to meeting their financial constraints. Where did I say that the cuts required should come from anyone else?
I can also say that in spite of the cuts made to some areas of state spending, during the just concluded special session, our Farm Bureau organizational position (which I have documented throughout this communication venue) has been and continues to be that taxes should not be increased. If things we care about need to be cut – should taxes be raised? Our position has been to not increase taxes.
When taxes have been increased (and there has been no shortage of tax increases going back to the 2003 Legislative Session) and funding flowed to the University System in significant amounts – did the College of Agriculture, Agricultural Research and other program areas that matter to farmers and ranchers “cash in” with untold gains? Frankly, if it happened that way…I don’t recall. I also don’t recall during times when funding increases were coming to the University System did the quality of agriculture education or agriculture research have any degree of difference.
When there was funding, agriculture wasn’t a priority for the University to receive those funds – when funding is short, agriculture isn’t a priority for the University to keep… So when tax increases are the selected alternatives – agriculture doesn’t gain anything…when tax increases aren’t chosen and cuts are required – agriculture gets the cuts…
And the problem of our not supporting tax increases would be?
Not having a College of Agriculture because we won’t bend to the raise taxes crowd is a very distasteful choice…but it would be doubtful that a change in our position and supporting tax increases would make a difference in the outcomes to be decided. If it did make a difference, what would that say about those making the choices?
The choice for what happens going forward is in the hands of those who will evaluate the merits of the proposal and make the choice that they decide. If the choices are not to meet the requirements of a Land Grant University, every effort should be made to have that status taken away. If UNR doesn’t deserve such status – it shouldn’t have that status and repayment (as spelled out) should be made accordingly.
As an advocate for limited government, who has not made it much of a secret for not wanting to see taxes increased, a number of our regular readers (and those who have made a point of clicking on our address for the attention we’ve been giving the proposal for the closure of the Nevada College of Agriculture, Biotechnology and Natural Resources) – the suggestion has been made that perhaps I was “sucking and blowing at the same time.” (This was an adage of a cranky old boss who didn’t have much time for those who wanted things both ways.)
Because all one has to do to check on my positions is scroll down, you will see the posts that I have made regarding the proposal to close CABNR as well as close the Main Station Farm (likely selling it off for the right price down the road). One could take the perspective from these posts that the decision to propose closing was not welcomed with open arms, however, I believe if you check closely…at no point in these posts did I say that closing CABNR was not an appropriate action for the University administration to take. You can also go through the archives to find a very clear and consistent point of view against tax increases.
With regard to the proposed closure of CABNR, I have stressed that there should be consequences for choosing to not have a College of Agriculture…I have pointed out that the Nevada Constitution says we should have a College of Agriculture…I have indicated that without a College of Agriculture and meaningful agricultural research program, the principles of a Land Grant University were dubious – but, and I’m still checking my past work…did I ever say that closing the College should be off limits for those who need to make the choices that are required of them to meeting their financial constraints. Where did I say that the cuts required should come from anyone else?
I can also say that in spite of the cuts made to some areas of state spending, during the just concluded special session, our Farm Bureau organizational position (which I have documented throughout this communication venue) has been and continues to be that taxes should not be increased. If things we care about need to be cut – should taxes be raised? Our position has been to not increase taxes.
When taxes have been increased (and there has been no shortage of tax increases going back to the 2003 Legislative Session) and funding flowed to the University System in significant amounts – did the College of Agriculture, Agricultural Research and other program areas that matter to farmers and ranchers “cash in” with untold gains? Frankly, if it happened that way…I don’t recall. I also don’t recall during times when funding increases were coming to the University System did the quality of agriculture education or agriculture research have any degree of difference.
When there was funding, agriculture wasn’t a priority for the University to receive those funds – when funding is short, agriculture isn’t a priority for the University to keep… So when tax increases are the selected alternatives – agriculture doesn’t gain anything…when tax increases aren’t chosen and cuts are required – agriculture gets the cuts…
And the problem of our not supporting tax increases would be?
Not having a College of Agriculture because we won’t bend to the raise taxes crowd is a very distasteful choice…but it would be doubtful that a change in our position and supporting tax increases would make a difference in the outcomes to be decided. If it did make a difference, what would that say about those making the choices?
The choice for what happens going forward is in the hands of those who will evaluate the merits of the proposal and make the choice that they decide. If the choices are not to meet the requirements of a Land Grant University, every effort should be made to have that status taken away. If UNR doesn’t deserve such status – it shouldn’t have that status and repayment (as spelled out) should be made accordingly.
Posted by Doug Busselman at 3/4/2010 7:45 PM 
Categories: Agriculture
Tags: Nevada Land Grant University System Proposed Closure Of Nevada College of Agriculture
Categories: Agriculture
Tags: Nevada Land Grant University System Proposed Closure Of Nevada College of Agriculture
Comments