The Election Process Forces Candidates To Lie?
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
The recent observation/suggestion by Sam Shad of Nevada Newsmakers struck me as an interesting proposal. In his program, while discussing the upcoming election with the assembled “power pundits”, Sam noted that he thought it would be a good thing for the two candidates for Nevada Governor to come to a gentlemen’s agreement and not force each other to say that they won’t increase taxes, if they are elected. The “power pundits” for the most part agreed that it would be suicide for either candidate to suggest that they would back a tax increase in the 2011 Nevada Legislative Session – you just can’t get elected saying that taxes should be increased.
“So they should keep on lying?” Sam responded (or at least words to that effect).
For the sake of being completely accurate to the letter, Governors don’t raise taxes – that would be the legislative branch. Governors can propose and as we’ve seen they can also veto, but the ultimate decision on tax increases is the responsibility of the 63 legislators who push the buttons at the south-end of the block in Carson City. With all the media types who are hyping how upside down the Nevada budget will be when the lawmakers gather, it shouldn’t be too difficult for anyone to come to the conclusion that those elected to represent the state will “do the right thing” and raise taxes to pay for the extra spending that government is automatically supposed to carry out.
What are the candidates for the legislative branch advancing as the message of their election or re-election bids? From what I’ve seen, the Democrats keep trying to sell the belief that our tax structure needs to be more fair – code for “don’t worry Mr. or Ms. Taxpayer, we’ll only tax those darn greedy business types and it won’t be our pockets we’re planning to drain.”
There is also the myth that there is a magical tax structure which can bring revenue to state coffers regardless of what is going on in the private sector economy. After all, as we heard from the majority party leaders on many occasions – providing for government’s need to spend should be the sole purpose for having a private sector.
For their part the members of the non-majority party are advancing the campaign message (at least for the Assembly races) – “we need to have enough members of the non-majority to keep the majority from simply running over everybody and cramming their tax increases through the process without a second thought.”
Herein lies the foundational understanding that Nevada voters need to take with them to the ballot decision. It is probably a certainty that Nevada taxes will be increased in the 2011 Legislative Session. Those who say it won’t happen are lying. Those who say they won’t support a tax increase (at least if they are from the majority party) are also lying. The real issue is what happens before the tax increase is decided.
If there is a budget process that is open and publicly discussed (no more Core, behind closed door operations) with actual CUTS in state spending (not claims on how the budget was slashed, but the end result has bigger numbers)…if there is an identifiable priority system that clearly demonstrates these (or this) is an “essential service” that gets the funding required and if there’s no more left after that “we’re sorry, but that’s what reality is all about” – then real “need” can be considered and a tax discussion on the merits can take place.
If the candidates (or any of them) seeking our votes maintain that approach to what voting for them will achieve we will have the option of casting a vote for somebody who deserves our support.
The recent observation/suggestion by Sam Shad of Nevada Newsmakers struck me as an interesting proposal. In his program, while discussing the upcoming election with the assembled “power pundits”, Sam noted that he thought it would be a good thing for the two candidates for Nevada Governor to come to a gentlemen’s agreement and not force each other to say that they won’t increase taxes, if they are elected. The “power pundits” for the most part agreed that it would be suicide for either candidate to suggest that they would back a tax increase in the 2011 Nevada Legislative Session – you just can’t get elected saying that taxes should be increased.
“So they should keep on lying?” Sam responded (or at least words to that effect).
For the sake of being completely accurate to the letter, Governors don’t raise taxes – that would be the legislative branch. Governors can propose and as we’ve seen they can also veto, but the ultimate decision on tax increases is the responsibility of the 63 legislators who push the buttons at the south-end of the block in Carson City. With all the media types who are hyping how upside down the Nevada budget will be when the lawmakers gather, it shouldn’t be too difficult for anyone to come to the conclusion that those elected to represent the state will “do the right thing” and raise taxes to pay for the extra spending that government is automatically supposed to carry out.
What are the candidates for the legislative branch advancing as the message of their election or re-election bids? From what I’ve seen, the Democrats keep trying to sell the belief that our tax structure needs to be more fair – code for “don’t worry Mr. or Ms. Taxpayer, we’ll only tax those darn greedy business types and it won’t be our pockets we’re planning to drain.”
There is also the myth that there is a magical tax structure which can bring revenue to state coffers regardless of what is going on in the private sector economy. After all, as we heard from the majority party leaders on many occasions – providing for government’s need to spend should be the sole purpose for having a private sector.
For their part the members of the non-majority party are advancing the campaign message (at least for the Assembly races) – “we need to have enough members of the non-majority to keep the majority from simply running over everybody and cramming their tax increases through the process without a second thought.”
Herein lies the foundational understanding that Nevada voters need to take with them to the ballot decision. It is probably a certainty that Nevada taxes will be increased in the 2011 Legislative Session. Those who say it won’t happen are lying. Those who say they won’t support a tax increase (at least if they are from the majority party) are also lying. The real issue is what happens before the tax increase is decided.
If there is a budget process that is open and publicly discussed (no more Core, behind closed door operations) with actual CUTS in state spending (not claims on how the budget was slashed, but the end result has bigger numbers)…if there is an identifiable priority system that clearly demonstrates these (or this) is an “essential service” that gets the funding required and if there’s no more left after that “we’re sorry, but that’s what reality is all about” – then real “need” can be considered and a tax discussion on the merits can take place.
If the candidates (or any of them) seeking our votes maintain that approach to what voting for them will achieve we will have the option of casting a vote for somebody who deserves our support.
Posted by Doug Busselman at 7/5/2010 9:13 AM 
Categories: 2010 Elections
Tags: Nevada Budget State Spending Taxes 2010 Election Government
Categories: 2010 Elections
Tags: Nevada Budget State Spending Taxes 2010 Election Government
Comments