There’s A Lot More To “No” Than Some People Want To Understand
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
Those who would like to see government spending increase take exception to the belief that limiting government’s size through efforts to prevent increased taxes is a legitimate pursuit/consideration. Beyond belittling comments and aspersions, we’ve even seen elected legislators stand on the state Senate Floor and lecture the private sector that they need to know their place and come to the table in order to contribute as they should to making bigger government more capable of providing.
We’ve been told that saying “No” to tax increases is not a justifiable point of view. When government demands an expansion of the tax base in order to prevent reductions in the rate of increases necessary to keep government operating at full bore – “No” is not an acceptable answer.
As we read here the key is having a leader who will help us to understand that greater levels of state spending are essential to our collective ability to prosper. In the process of this magnanimous effort by our government to provide all we need, we shouldn’t pay any attention to though those who had to give up what they earned through their efforts, exercise of ingenuity and putting personal assets at risk.
Only through greater government spending can we expect to benefit and that requires a broader-based tax collection to make certain everyone is giving their “fair share”. We’ll be hearing a lot more about that concept of “fair share” which exclusively applies to the other guy paying more, especially those who are considered to have lots more to give.
When they too have been tapped out – then what? When all sectors are equal (with no one having the sustainability or profitability to continue operations) who will be required to pay more then? Maybe there’s something about “No” that our elected representatives need to better understand.
Perhaps those who won’t accept “No” as an option for growing our state government’s expenditures would best be given the chance to become part of the private sector (at least to the extent that they no longer have the ability to press the voting buttons at the state capitol) – a number would still be drawing government checks since they aren’t actually members of the private sector even when they aren’t serving as legislators. Learning to understand that there is more to “No” than what they understand could be an education that we all would benefit from.
Through such an enlightened point of view we might discover that innovation is possible without automatic increases to pay for extras. We might discover that it is more important to evaluate education on what we get by way of improved student performance as opposed to how much we are required to pay.
Those who consider themselves to be entitled to the output that others earn would do well to come to grips with the concept of “No” and in the process recognize that it means much more than what they want to accept. Saying “No” to more government is really saying “Yes” to private sector and individual opportunity.
Those who would like to see government spending increase take exception to the belief that limiting government’s size through efforts to prevent increased taxes is a legitimate pursuit/consideration. Beyond belittling comments and aspersions, we’ve even seen elected legislators stand on the state Senate Floor and lecture the private sector that they need to know their place and come to the table in order to contribute as they should to making bigger government more capable of providing.
We’ve been told that saying “No” to tax increases is not a justifiable point of view. When government demands an expansion of the tax base in order to prevent reductions in the rate of increases necessary to keep government operating at full bore – “No” is not an acceptable answer.
As we read here the key is having a leader who will help us to understand that greater levels of state spending are essential to our collective ability to prosper. In the process of this magnanimous effort by our government to provide all we need, we shouldn’t pay any attention to though those who had to give up what they earned through their efforts, exercise of ingenuity and putting personal assets at risk.
Only through greater government spending can we expect to benefit and that requires a broader-based tax collection to make certain everyone is giving their “fair share”. We’ll be hearing a lot more about that concept of “fair share” which exclusively applies to the other guy paying more, especially those who are considered to have lots more to give.
When they too have been tapped out – then what? When all sectors are equal (with no one having the sustainability or profitability to continue operations) who will be required to pay more then? Maybe there’s something about “No” that our elected representatives need to better understand.
Perhaps those who won’t accept “No” as an option for growing our state government’s expenditures would best be given the chance to become part of the private sector (at least to the extent that they no longer have the ability to press the voting buttons at the state capitol) – a number would still be drawing government checks since they aren’t actually members of the private sector even when they aren’t serving as legislators. Learning to understand that there is more to “No” than what they understand could be an education that we all would benefit from.
Through such an enlightened point of view we might discover that innovation is possible without automatic increases to pay for extras. We might discover that it is more important to evaluate education on what we get by way of improved student performance as opposed to how much we are required to pay.
Those who consider themselves to be entitled to the output that others earn would do well to come to grips with the concept of “No” and in the process recognize that it means much more than what they want to accept. Saying “No” to more government is really saying “Yes” to private sector and individual opportunity.
Posted by Doug Busselman at 4/12/2010 5:49 AM 
Categories: Nevada State Spending
Tags: Nevada Government Spending Budget
Categories: Nevada State Spending
Tags: Nevada Government Spending Budget
Comments