Making Government Smaller On Purpose
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
The worry going into the Nevada 2011 Legislature is that we will have about half the revenue coming into the state’s coffers that will be needed to finance the programs and services which we’re supposed to consider as essential. This concept is based on taking what we currently are spending and factoring in the amounts with increases that are considered to be necessary. Projecting expected deficits by as much as half is anticipated to set the stage for “reasonable” people to assume tax increases are the only logical approach to take.
In a recent television news program the Nevada Senate’s Majority Leader, Senator Steven Horsford drew attention to the ridiculous idea of having to cut Nevada’s already poorly funded education system by half of what they are currently receiving. It is always a great starting point to portray education as being underfunded in order to stimulate the fervor for tax increases.
Those who advocate not having tax increases are framed in this debate as obstructionists who are harming the future of children as well as Nevada’s economic well-being. How short-sighted can you be for not simply handing over whatever is necessary to continue the funding stream at the levels big government champions believe warranted?
While not raising taxes is a worthy approach – especially given the weakness of the state’s economy incapable of sustaining itself and the unquenchable desire from the majority party for ever more tax revenue – simply accepting less revenue and believing we will get more cost effective government is not likely to be the result.
Getting to smaller and effective government is going to require a systematic and deliberative process which makes it a top priority to determine what priorities need to be and then replaces current government infrastructure with new systems to deliver maximum results. In replacing the structure and operations of government to accomplish enhanced outcomes there also needs to be a concerted emphasis on building in accountability processes which offer transparent metrics to show how taxpayers’ dollars are delivering. The model for implementing procedures to take us in this direction have been outlined by the Nevada Policy Research Institute highlighting the success other states have been able to achieve.
In order to advance such an agenda, the candidates who are seeking our votes in November need to be presented with questions on their positions for such an overhaul of Nevada government. We need to press for commitments that if they are elected, we will see their legislative initiatives to deliver us with a sustainable government structure that gets the necessary work done without taking more than the private sector should be required to pay.
The worry going into the Nevada 2011 Legislature is that we will have about half the revenue coming into the state’s coffers that will be needed to finance the programs and services which we’re supposed to consider as essential. This concept is based on taking what we currently are spending and factoring in the amounts with increases that are considered to be necessary. Projecting expected deficits by as much as half is anticipated to set the stage for “reasonable” people to assume tax increases are the only logical approach to take.
In a recent television news program the Nevada Senate’s Majority Leader, Senator Steven Horsford drew attention to the ridiculous idea of having to cut Nevada’s already poorly funded education system by half of what they are currently receiving. It is always a great starting point to portray education as being underfunded in order to stimulate the fervor for tax increases.
Those who advocate not having tax increases are framed in this debate as obstructionists who are harming the future of children as well as Nevada’s economic well-being. How short-sighted can you be for not simply handing over whatever is necessary to continue the funding stream at the levels big government champions believe warranted?
While not raising taxes is a worthy approach – especially given the weakness of the state’s economy incapable of sustaining itself and the unquenchable desire from the majority party for ever more tax revenue – simply accepting less revenue and believing we will get more cost effective government is not likely to be the result.
Getting to smaller and effective government is going to require a systematic and deliberative process which makes it a top priority to determine what priorities need to be and then replaces current government infrastructure with new systems to deliver maximum results. In replacing the structure and operations of government to accomplish enhanced outcomes there also needs to be a concerted emphasis on building in accountability processes which offer transparent metrics to show how taxpayers’ dollars are delivering. The model for implementing procedures to take us in this direction have been outlined by the Nevada Policy Research Institute highlighting the success other states have been able to achieve.
In order to advance such an agenda, the candidates who are seeking our votes in November need to be presented with questions on their positions for such an overhaul of Nevada government. We need to press for commitments that if they are elected, we will see their legislative initiatives to deliver us with a sustainable government structure that gets the necessary work done without taking more than the private sector should be required to pay.
Posted by Doug Busselman at 7/7/2010 11:17 AM 
Categories: Nevada
Tags: Government Nevada Budget State Spending Taxes 2010 Election
Categories: Nevada
Tags: Government Nevada Budget State Spending Taxes 2010 Election
Comments