Ruminating On The Idea Of Fixing Nevada’s Financial System
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
Having spent some time going through Geoffrey Lawrence’s “One Sound State, Once Again ,” proposal and evaluating the various elements of a comprehensive approach to not only deal with taxes, but more importantly with Nevada government’s spending it was interesting reading this assessment by Patrick Gibbons, who is also with the Nevada Policy Research Institute. What struck me as being interesting is the effort in Gibbons’ post, seeking to build support with the one group (small government conservatives) who should be the most supportive of this extremely sound and responsible approach to restructuring Nevada’s financial system.
Nevada lawmakers, especially those of the current majority party, have (with the help of some Republican legislators) spent our state into a financial hole. The solution that these folks want to see carried out is full-fledged tax increases. They consider the problem to be that taxpayers aren’t paying enough for the spending binge that they want to continue. Using their classic and highly successful method of “class warfare” they seek to convince Nevada citizens that there are elements of this state who aren’t paying their fair share. Those holding out and causing our state to not be able to achieve greater government spending are greedy corporate interests, clutching at financial resources which “we the people” should have available for more spending.
Gibbons, correctly identifies this as the motivation of the leftist, secular, socialist machine which is working to build and expand for themselves a power base for long-term control. The revenue-neutral proposal by Lawrence is a significant impediment for their cause, especially given the common-sense concepts that everyday voters could easily accept as reasonable. Because of it being so reasonable and connected to a responsible approach for government, the extremist who want further government expansion have to temper their own proposals or be seen as the extremist they are.
As we approach the upcoming general election, we need to not only hope – but press strongly those seeking our votes – to address their points of view on the comprehensive fiscal outline of reforms for Nevada that Lawrence has offered. Where do they stand specifically on the steps of making Nevada’s financial foundation stronger by:
1. Eliminating the modified business tax;
2. Eliminating the insurance premium tax;
3. Broadening the sales tax base and reducing the statewide sales tax to 3.5 percent;
4. Implementing priority-based budgeting; and
5. Implementing spending controls that limit state spending growth to the rate of inflation plus population increase
There are elements of this reform effort which will be challenging for all of us to accept and we believe tax discussions as a whole should be structured in the political conversations to come after the critical base of sound budgeting and spending controls have been implemented. However, getting to the point of being able to have a meaningful conversation/debate will require outcomes in November’s election that avoid the current majority political party from having the numbers of their party sufficient to avoid a conversation. The majority party has demonstrated that they can and will use their power to steamroll anything not part of their agenda. Fifteen (15) non-Democratic members in the Nevada Assembly and at least eight (8) non-Democrats in the Nevada Senate -- at a minimum, needs to be the objective the outcome of Nevada’s 2010 election. This can be the only hope for the protection of Nevada citizens.
If the election outcome provides the majority party with the unfettered ability to finance their expanded government agenda -- with your wallet…they will.
Having spent some time going through Geoffrey Lawrence’s “One Sound State, Once Again ,” proposal and evaluating the various elements of a comprehensive approach to not only deal with taxes, but more importantly with Nevada government’s spending it was interesting reading this assessment by Patrick Gibbons, who is also with the Nevada Policy Research Institute. What struck me as being interesting is the effort in Gibbons’ post, seeking to build support with the one group (small government conservatives) who should be the most supportive of this extremely sound and responsible approach to restructuring Nevada’s financial system.
Nevada lawmakers, especially those of the current majority party, have (with the help of some Republican legislators) spent our state into a financial hole. The solution that these folks want to see carried out is full-fledged tax increases. They consider the problem to be that taxpayers aren’t paying enough for the spending binge that they want to continue. Using their classic and highly successful method of “class warfare” they seek to convince Nevada citizens that there are elements of this state who aren’t paying their fair share. Those holding out and causing our state to not be able to achieve greater government spending are greedy corporate interests, clutching at financial resources which “we the people” should have available for more spending.
Gibbons, correctly identifies this as the motivation of the leftist, secular, socialist machine which is working to build and expand for themselves a power base for long-term control. The revenue-neutral proposal by Lawrence is a significant impediment for their cause, especially given the common-sense concepts that everyday voters could easily accept as reasonable. Because of it being so reasonable and connected to a responsible approach for government, the extremist who want further government expansion have to temper their own proposals or be seen as the extremist they are.
As we approach the upcoming general election, we need to not only hope – but press strongly those seeking our votes – to address their points of view on the comprehensive fiscal outline of reforms for Nevada that Lawrence has offered. Where do they stand specifically on the steps of making Nevada’s financial foundation stronger by:
1. Eliminating the modified business tax;
2. Eliminating the insurance premium tax;
3. Broadening the sales tax base and reducing the statewide sales tax to 3.5 percent;
4. Implementing priority-based budgeting; and
5. Implementing spending controls that limit state spending growth to the rate of inflation plus population increase
There are elements of this reform effort which will be challenging for all of us to accept and we believe tax discussions as a whole should be structured in the political conversations to come after the critical base of sound budgeting and spending controls have been implemented. However, getting to the point of being able to have a meaningful conversation/debate will require outcomes in November’s election that avoid the current majority political party from having the numbers of their party sufficient to avoid a conversation. The majority party has demonstrated that they can and will use their power to steamroll anything not part of their agenda. Fifteen (15) non-Democratic members in the Nevada Assembly and at least eight (8) non-Democrats in the Nevada Senate -- at a minimum, needs to be the objective the outcome of Nevada’s 2010 election. This can be the only hope for the protection of Nevada citizens.
If the election outcome provides the majority party with the unfettered ability to finance their expanded government agenda -- with your wallet…they will.
Posted by Doug Busselman at 6/7/2010 9:19 AM 
Categories: 2010 Elections
Tags: Election 2010 Nevada Policy Research Institute Nevada Budget and Spending Increasing Taxes
Categories: 2010 Elections
Tags: Election 2010 Nevada Policy Research Institute Nevada Budget and Spending Increasing Taxes
Comments