Failure To Gain Signatures Good News
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
As one of the lone stalwarts of keeping Nevada workers employed and drawing paychecks, the threat to tax Nevada’s mining industry by using the jealousy of “they’ve got it so let’s take it” fell short when the group who would like to wipe mining out anyway didn’t get the necessary signatures. This effort to single out a profitable enterprise and take what they’ve got because Nevada government wants to grow isn’t the last that we will see. The zealots of unlimited government growth (inside the Nevada Legislature as well as among the state’s citizenry) are not going to halt the clamor of taking whatever they can get from whoever can be vilified to provide for the increase of government, but at least they won’t have the ballot in November to use for this specific extraction effort.
Under the most ideal of circumstances the November election will result in the election of enough non-Democrats to provide for a super minority in the Nevada Assembly as well as keeping the state Senate from having a super majority of tax-raisers. This combination could then lead to meaningful public deliberations (something that won’t happen if the representatives with the initial “D” behind their name have sufficient numbers to ram through their tax increase agenda) on replacing the unsustainable state budget approach (take whatever got spent last time, add 10 percent and grow government spending regardless of the capability of the private sector to support the increase). The new zero-based budget system should also include the establishment of a priority structure which recognizes that targeting the limited resources of the taxpayers should be used to deliver essential services with a bottom-line focus of accountability.
Having established clear and defined objectives for responsible spending (through a completely open public deliberation process – not from the backroom wheeling and dealing used over the past couple of sessions)…then and only then should potential shortfalls of revenue be considered for attention.
Part of the funding crisis being stimulated by the gloom and doom projections of how upside down the state’s budget status could be heading into the 2011 Session is the intent to make it seem that a massive tax increase is the only possible solution. This was also the expectation behind the drive to acquire enough public signatures to put the mining tax change on the ballot. Hopefully, the failure to trick the public into blindly accepting the theme of tax – tax – tax so government can spend – spend – spend will translate into an improved approach of deliberately maintaining a small-scale, accountable government.
As one of the lone stalwarts of keeping Nevada workers employed and drawing paychecks, the threat to tax Nevada’s mining industry by using the jealousy of “they’ve got it so let’s take it” fell short when the group who would like to wipe mining out anyway didn’t get the necessary signatures. This effort to single out a profitable enterprise and take what they’ve got because Nevada government wants to grow isn’t the last that we will see. The zealots of unlimited government growth (inside the Nevada Legislature as well as among the state’s citizenry) are not going to halt the clamor of taking whatever they can get from whoever can be vilified to provide for the increase of government, but at least they won’t have the ballot in November to use for this specific extraction effort.
Under the most ideal of circumstances the November election will result in the election of enough non-Democrats to provide for a super minority in the Nevada Assembly as well as keeping the state Senate from having a super majority of tax-raisers. This combination could then lead to meaningful public deliberations (something that won’t happen if the representatives with the initial “D” behind their name have sufficient numbers to ram through their tax increase agenda) on replacing the unsustainable state budget approach (take whatever got spent last time, add 10 percent and grow government spending regardless of the capability of the private sector to support the increase). The new zero-based budget system should also include the establishment of a priority structure which recognizes that targeting the limited resources of the taxpayers should be used to deliver essential services with a bottom-line focus of accountability.
Having established clear and defined objectives for responsible spending (through a completely open public deliberation process – not from the backroom wheeling and dealing used over the past couple of sessions)…then and only then should potential shortfalls of revenue be considered for attention.
Part of the funding crisis being stimulated by the gloom and doom projections of how upside down the state’s budget status could be heading into the 2011 Session is the intent to make it seem that a massive tax increase is the only possible solution. This was also the expectation behind the drive to acquire enough public signatures to put the mining tax change on the ballot. Hopefully, the failure to trick the public into blindly accepting the theme of tax – tax – tax so government can spend – spend – spend will translate into an improved approach of deliberately maintaining a small-scale, accountable government.
Posted by Doug Busselman at 6/15/2010 5:38 AM 
Categories: Nevada Budget
Tags: Nevada Budget State Spending Taxes 2010 Election Government
Categories: Nevada Budget
Tags: Nevada Budget State Spending Taxes 2010 Election Government
A 5% tax is not an attempt to "wipe out mining." Sales tax in Nevada is at 7.5%. So I pay more in tax on things I buy, than mining does on its gross profits.
If PLAN didn't obtain the number of signatures necessary to get its initiative on the ballot, then it's due to the very poor quality of education that Nevadans are now receiving. Nevada nearly dried up and blew away when the Comstock Lode played out, even though it was the richest silver strike the world had yet known. Why? The lobbying of the California Bank crowd was successful in the state legislature, and mining companies weren't required to pay ANY taxes to the state. California, however, did tax the California Bank crowd's income, and San Francisco became extremely wealthy from Nevada mining proceeds.
Your tirade doesn't seem to take note of the fact that many of the mining companies plundering the mineral wealth of the U.S. are, in fact, either foreign owned, or owned by FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS. Would these--do these-- foreign governments give their mineral wealth away?
Doug, you've never answered my question. You're from Minnesota. What does the state of Minnesota charge 3M, or any other mining company, for its mining operations in that state? I would think substantially more than 5%, wouldn't you?
Reply to this