Figuring Out How To Live With Less Government Dollars
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
Since the end of the 2010 Special Session the work of dealing with less government spending has been a major emphasis. Lots of hours have been spent in meetings and discussions considering responses and alternatives to various cuts or re-direction of fund balances which were previously established for other things. From an agricultural perspective this attention has been necessary for matters regard the Department of Agriculture and the University of Nevada, College of Agriculture, Biotechnology and Natural Resources (CABNR).
The point of bring this up is not to be critical of the actions taken to reduce state spending -- actually there could be justification for supporting even greater cuts – but it does bring to the forefront the changing dynamics of how spending reductions have consequences which need to be examined. The attention is not only an immediate response or need for short-term adjustment. It also requires a long-range analysis of where we’ll need to go in the future.
Expectations are that the 2011 Nevada Legislature will be required to deal with budget gaps of more than $3 Billion (just to get to the point where the 2009 Legislature left things). The game plan for those who support bigger government spending is to fashion a tax increase solution which will not only grow current taxes, but also install new ones on business enterprises (since charging citizens of the state directly might not be as easy to get away with…). It is much more politically acceptable to vilify business as not paying their fair share, drum up the emotional pitch to work the majority party members to vote “yes” and hopefully also point fingers of angst for political gain at those legislators who press the “no” button.
If the perspective of the lawmaker focus from the 2010 Special Session translates into more of the same in 2011, it isn’t unreasonable to also expect a strong push for greater funding to be required from user fees or non-general fund sources. (This would be in addition to the tax increases that will be promoted as necessary.) Increasing the ability to pour the maximum amount of resources into the chosen areas of education and human services (which already take the major amount of state spending) will be achieved by increasing the tax revenue and off-loading as much government expenses, which aren’t connected to these areas, to those who can be required to pay in order to get the service government is giving them.
For some, in certain circumstances, the likely outcome will be the requirement to pay higher taxes, more fees and possibly see reductions in the level of services they receive. Nevada agricultural producers are seeing some of this unfolding in the present mix of changes that are working their way forward. User fees in the Department of Agriculture’s program of services to the industry are being examined to make certain that costs can be covered for operations. There is also a current proposal in play to save money by replacing the person who is the State Veterinarian with an acting State Vet from within the ranks of other veterinarians in the Department.
It is not too soon to begin thinking beyond the current reaction mode to evaluation of the things which government does by way of services that citizens need carried out. In some cases those services may need to be discontinued without replacement. In some cases the services and approaches for delivery will need to be changed to fit within the budgetary means available. In some cases the services will need to be paid for through different sources, giving up general fund dollars for user fees or other means. Lastly, there will be some situations (perhaps as in the case of the State Veterinarian) where the need to maintain the integrity of the program and the inability to assign a user group with the financial responsibility for paying for something that actually benefits the general public as a whole – general fund dollars should be used to pay.
Working through these scenarios is something which needs to be carried out with public involvement in order to be in a legitimate position for legislative approval down the road. Actions considered in a vacuum will result in decisions that aren’t understood or supported when both will be needed. The state agencies and those they are supposed to be serving need to step up and begin working together in ways they might not have considered as the normal course of business in the past.
Since the end of the 2010 Special Session the work of dealing with less government spending has been a major emphasis. Lots of hours have been spent in meetings and discussions considering responses and alternatives to various cuts or re-direction of fund balances which were previously established for other things. From an agricultural perspective this attention has been necessary for matters regard the Department of Agriculture and the University of Nevada, College of Agriculture, Biotechnology and Natural Resources (CABNR).
The point of bring this up is not to be critical of the actions taken to reduce state spending -- actually there could be justification for supporting even greater cuts – but it does bring to the forefront the changing dynamics of how spending reductions have consequences which need to be examined. The attention is not only an immediate response or need for short-term adjustment. It also requires a long-range analysis of where we’ll need to go in the future.
Expectations are that the 2011 Nevada Legislature will be required to deal with budget gaps of more than $3 Billion (just to get to the point where the 2009 Legislature left things). The game plan for those who support bigger government spending is to fashion a tax increase solution which will not only grow current taxes, but also install new ones on business enterprises (since charging citizens of the state directly might not be as easy to get away with…). It is much more politically acceptable to vilify business as not paying their fair share, drum up the emotional pitch to work the majority party members to vote “yes” and hopefully also point fingers of angst for political gain at those legislators who press the “no” button.
If the perspective of the lawmaker focus from the 2010 Special Session translates into more of the same in 2011, it isn’t unreasonable to also expect a strong push for greater funding to be required from user fees or non-general fund sources. (This would be in addition to the tax increases that will be promoted as necessary.) Increasing the ability to pour the maximum amount of resources into the chosen areas of education and human services (which already take the major amount of state spending) will be achieved by increasing the tax revenue and off-loading as much government expenses, which aren’t connected to these areas, to those who can be required to pay in order to get the service government is giving them.
For some, in certain circumstances, the likely outcome will be the requirement to pay higher taxes, more fees and possibly see reductions in the level of services they receive. Nevada agricultural producers are seeing some of this unfolding in the present mix of changes that are working their way forward. User fees in the Department of Agriculture’s program of services to the industry are being examined to make certain that costs can be covered for operations. There is also a current proposal in play to save money by replacing the person who is the State Veterinarian with an acting State Vet from within the ranks of other veterinarians in the Department.
It is not too soon to begin thinking beyond the current reaction mode to evaluation of the things which government does by way of services that citizens need carried out. In some cases those services may need to be discontinued without replacement. In some cases the services and approaches for delivery will need to be changed to fit within the budgetary means available. In some cases the services will need to be paid for through different sources, giving up general fund dollars for user fees or other means. Lastly, there will be some situations (perhaps as in the case of the State Veterinarian) where the need to maintain the integrity of the program and the inability to assign a user group with the financial responsibility for paying for something that actually benefits the general public as a whole – general fund dollars should be used to pay.
Working through these scenarios is something which needs to be carried out with public involvement in order to be in a legitimate position for legislative approval down the road. Actions considered in a vacuum will result in decisions that aren’t understood or supported when both will be needed. The state agencies and those they are supposed to be serving need to step up and begin working together in ways they might not have considered as the normal course of business in the past.
Posted by Doug Busselman at 3/31/2010 4:12 AM 
Categories: Agriculture
Tags: Nevada Budget State Spending Taxes Nevada Legislature Government Department of Agriculture
Categories: Agriculture
Tags: Nevada Budget State Spending Taxes Nevada Legislature Government Department of Agriculture
Comments