NVFBBLOG.ORG

Who Should Be The “Broader” Part Of The Tax Base?

Doug Busselman — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 14:11:00 GMT

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

The discussions at the Nevada Vision Stakeholders group meeting this past Friday, broached the topic of the need for Nevada requiring a broader tax base. This theme will be a constant thread that will be loudly proclaimed between now and the end of the 2011 Nevada Legislative Session. We can expect the voices of mining and gaming advocating that other business enterprises join them in the effort to satisfy the majority party’s no-limit thirst for tax dollars.

Those who spend and those who receive their checks from government’s checkbook are convinced that the private sector exist in order to pay taxes and provide whatever is earned for the public good. Ultimately this is the reason that the Nevada Vision Stakeholders were created – come up with the need for greater levels of spending…then legislators will have the cover they seek as the excuse to pursue more taxes from more places. This of course is something that we’re not supposed to consider as a pre-determined outcome, let’s just be surprised if that’s how it turns out…

As was pointed out in this piece, Nevada legislators having more money to spend has only resulted in spending all of what was available and then needing to raise taxes to spend more. Our only real protection from this spend, spend – tax increase – spend, spend cycle is to put in place a solid prevention measure that causes state spending to be constrained by the vote of the people. If there would have been a spending limitation system in place, there would have been increases in spending as required to meet inflation and growth requirements. What would not have happened is allowing the spenders in charge of the Nevada Legislature from exceeding the ability of the private sector to produce enough tax revenue to meet their spending excesses. This policy paper not only emphasizes this reality, but also graphically demonstrates the way legislators have escalated their spending binge to ever new levels, regardless of the economic downturn that everyone else has had to endure.

The business community is the primary targets for the state’s Democrats, thinking that it’s always easier to portray that sector as being flush with cash that ought to be going to cover the costs deemed appropriate for government spending. This line of reasoning was clearly put on display during the 2010 Special Legislative Session where even a term-limited Republican Senator thought it acceptable to lecture on how business needs to be less inclined to seek keeping their resources for business operations and employment of their employees. The public sector is far more important than those who earn a living in the private sector…so pay up. “No” is not a viable option, according to our elected “leaders” – it shouldn’t be a point of view when it comes to tax increases and it shouldn’t be a perspective when it comes to spending increases. Just like the instructions on the shampoo bottle – spend, tax…repeat steps.

Would the same approach be acceptable if the taxes were being levied against individual citizens? Would the demands be as blatant if those writing out the checks were individual voters, paying in a personal way (instead of the somewhat hidden manner of sales tax assessments or the hidden income tax assessed on employee’s payrolls)? The same class warfare, populist appeal wouldn’t work if the target for the never-ending tax requirements were individuals.

That’s exactly the reason for the need to put in place a spending constraint measure to keep state government spending from increasing at the pace it has been sky-rocketing higher it also is the reason why the broader tax base being sought should come in the form of individuals paying for the costs of Nevada government. First, we would accomplish the fundamental requirement for keeping state spending within the boundaries of responsibility and because of individual voter taxpayers being engaged directly, accountability would also become reality.

The Downside Of The Plan To Make A Vertical Cut To Get Rid Of Agriculture

Doug Busselman — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 01:10:00 GMT

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

Without any public disclosure of the evidence that an across the board approach to budget cuts would be more detrimental, the determination has been made to go forward with a proposal for doing away with the College of Agriculture and a couple of Departments contained in the dismantled college. We’re told that prior to the start of the Special Legislative Session each College submitted plans for an eight (8) percent cut – far more than the required $11 Million target. It has also been noted that significant savings would be available by University personnel following the same approach of salary savings through work furloughs.

Instead of other options, the idea being forwarded through the decision system also includes merging other agricultural programs into parts of the UNR campus where their future will be increasingly diminished and neutralized to meaningless nothingness (with the outcome of the anti-agricultural agendas being enhanced in the process). The people in charge of making the decision have decided to select the things that matter, keep those things going and get rid of the College of Agriculture.

There will be every effort made by University officials to give the impression that although the proposed plan does away with the College of Agriculture, there is enough of a façade left to give an impression that the actions are not about completely turning their back on agriculture. A handout from the Provost offers insight into this thinking, stating that “UNR is working on creation of a unit name which appropriately identifies agriculture.” (This was offered in the area that was attempting to justify the action in light of the state’s constitutional requirements for having a College of Agriculture…) The justification also tweaks the language of Constitution to further advance the idea that today’s University of Nevada, Land Grant University doesn’t have to actually comply with was written once upon a time ago.

One of the problems in making the determined selection of abandoning a segment of the population, as UNR is doing with agricultural interests, is that the abandonment will work both ways. Where and why should rural Nevada care about the “let’s pretend” Land Grant University that once was celebrated for its mission and purpose. There simply will be no reason to care about whether UNR has a future or not – taking the same approach that the University is taking toward agriculture through its actions.

It will be difficult to find the resources for building a working relationship with institutions outside of the state who do care about agriculture in an educational and applied research sense. This is one of the reasons for acquiring a trust system which would be financed by the sale of the University of Nevada’s agricultural research assets. Preventing the plunder of these assets for non-agricultural benefit by University officials will also provide the mechanics for obtaining financial resources that can be used in courting non-University of Nevada support to advance the cause of Nevada farmers and ranchers. Agricultural supporters need to remember that their gifts and other support for UNR should be redirected to institutions which do support agricultural education and research.

The UNR budget include a line item for the agricultural experiment station system, these funds should also be considered as being open for use by other institutions (not necessarily Nevada based) for furtherance of agricultural research. Given UNR’s desire to not be bothered with agricultural needs, those who might be interested in filling this vacuum should be considered as viable solutions. There may not be a working model that foresees this approach, but the Morrill Act didn’t envision that a Land Grant University would reject having a College of Agriculture for the expediency of being able to cash in agricultural research property for the good of its liberal arts pursuits.

Future For Nevada Agriculture Education And Research What Agriculture Will Make Of It

Doug Busselman — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 18:21:00 GMT

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

At the recent meeting of the College of Agriculture Advisory Committee, the provost of the University of Nevada, Reno wanted to give those present assurance that the University was not turning its back on the state’s farmers and ranchers. The moves working their way to the closure of the College of Agriculture, Biotechnology and Natural Resources (CABNR) and shutting down two additional departments that have been part of the College were portrayed as being a painful necessity in order for other, more important elements of UNR’s mission, to come out of the downturn in a better position to advance. Dumping agriculture isn’t something that should be taken personally, it’s just an administration decision that had to be carried out for the good of the whole…gaining roughly $4.2 Million in savings from the necessary $11 Million that needs to be cut.

Nevada agriculture can decide that they are victims of this betrayal of the University’s Land Grant mission…there have been any number of examples where the University system and leaders/decision makers have selected the options which resulted in Nevada agriculture being harmed. As is the case with the current circumstances the effort is made to portray the action as not being a rejection of the needs of agricultural producers or responsibilities of the institution. As is the case with the current situation the reality of what University officials have done cuts into the potential of what Nevada agriculture could be.

It comes down to the numbers, UNR can pretend to be a Land Grant University, cloaking the lack of substance with make-believe offerings to agricultural education and research – there’s not enough people who will care to make a stink which will last beyond the initial blow-up…weather the storm, blame the cuts on necessity, cite a commitment that doesn’t need to be carried through with any better than past performance has required, cash in on the lucrative property values of the 1,000 acre Main Station farm in Reno…

Anyone expecting the Nevada University Board Of Regents to stand in the way of the pre-ordained decision need to remember the past support given to the state’s agriculture. Can’t remember when that happened? Well, neither can anyone else…

Choice Of Responses:

Instead of standing by and merely playing the victim role there can be responses that works to implement an action line of attack.

There are probably only a couple of approaches for where to go from here. One option will be to tolerate the situation and attempt to work with UNR officials to make the most of the situation. Perhaps there might be some semblance of a potential arrangement where limited needs can be met by working cooperatively and remaining engaged with the decision-makers for compromised operations to give some assistance to specific and pre-identified approaches.

The other alternative is to go forward without concern for what might happen, understanding that the University isn’t going to be worthwhile for agricultural needs, regardless of what is kept on life support and knowing that further erosion will continue until there is barely a memory of what once was a legitimate Land Grant University in Nevada that did serve the needs of agricultural producers. This approach will continue to advance the cause of preventing the experiment station assets from being sold off for the benefit of UNR. This approach will also need Nevada Legislative action to establish meaningful protection to keep the proceeds from the impending sales in a trust to be used for legitimate agricultural programs. Further, there should be the measures to find ways of decertifying the University as a Land Grant University, requiring the repayment of money’s used to start and support the University of Nevada.

It really doesn’t matter which course Nevada agriculture determines as being the choice of these options…in the end, the lack of meaningful services from the University for agricultural production will be the same.

Another Great Reason On Why State Taxes Should Be More

Doug Busselman — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:44:00 GMT

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

With the kickoff of the 2010 Census process we are bombarded by the message that completing the required paperwork of counting ourselves is an act for the good of Nevada – how else are we going to get our fair share of the money coming from Washington, D.C.? It is our civic responsibility to do our part in “bringing home the bacon”!

Along these same lines, we’re going to really start bearing down more in the payment of additional taxes at a greater level, because as this study points out, we’re not getting all that we should from the federal treasury. Again, we need to pay up so Nevada’s per-capita take from the federal trough can be up there where it should be – along with the other states who get more handouts from Uncle Sam.

The most troubling theme of these inter-related points is the blazon and blatant belief that individuals deserve (to the extent of a birthright) to get their share of government dollars.

Okay, let’s give this some focused thought… The government gets its money from where? Would it be a logical stretch to consider the idea that government should not get as much money and permit those who have earned the money to keep their own?

Of course that would mean a high number of those getting the money from the government would need to earn the money they get, as opposed to having government’s generosity giving them somebody else’s money. How could the champions of bigger government survive such a shift in direction? It’s what keeps them getting re-elected!

It is also what keeps government growing and has brought us to the point of needing a special Nevada Legislative session to save the essential programs of buying people dentures and adult diapers. Yep, there’s gonna need to be tax increases (at least on the other guys) so we can have the financial capacity in state government’s spending arsenal to collect even more from the federal treasury (which will then require more federal taxes to cover the checks Uncle Sam is going to be writing for Nevada)… For some people this passes for something that makes sense?

Hopefully, it won’t be a majority of those who vote in November…

Moving Forward With A Response To Proposed Closing Of College Of Agriculture

Doug Busselman — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:55:00 GMT

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

Since the announcement on March 1st that University of Nevada, Reno officials were proposing a list of possible actions, including the closing of the College of Agriculture, there has been a full-court press on developing the response to deal with the proposals. It is good to see that students are mobilizing as they are capable to organize.

In response to the ideas that were laid out here as a potential list of prioritized ideas, we’ve received outstanding feedback including this very detailed and well-thought-out assessment/prospective approach. These and other matters will be discussed at length when the College of Agriculture’s Advisory Committee gets together for a meeting on Thursday.

Various actions are underway to provide input to the decision process which is used in the University system to evaluate the proposed plans. While this approach of “defense” is necessary and requires our best efforts, it also needs to be understood that the considerations are in the context of criteria which weigh a justification for continuing based on the status quo. If successful you get to keep what you’ve got, albeit with less money and probably missing key faculty members who are already deciding that going somewhere else -- a place where agriculture education and research are considered priorities for Land Grant Universities -- is a better option.

There will be additional follow-up with Nevada Legislators and others who are capable of implementing meaningful actions to address the situation and put in place the steps necessary to protect agricultural research assets from being plundered for cash-strapped UNR officials who seem to consider those assets as the money tree which should be plucked for harvest.

We continue to maintain and have made significant progress in gaining support for legislation putting any agricultural research asset sell-off funds into a trust account which would be used to support agricultural education and research. The approach needs to also provide constructive limitations for those ultimately in charge of the oversight process of Nevada’s Higher Education system. This protection is necessary given the track record of the past several years, especially the manner in which the Board of Regents side-stepped their own policy guidelines that supposedly were in place to accomplish the same recognition of agricultural assets being utilized for the needs of Nevada agricultural producers.

As we have seen on a repeated basis, the best interests of Nevada agriculture isn’t part of the considerations involved with those at the helm of the University system overall as they grab for whatever cash they can obtain, not caring whatsoever about negative consequences to the citizens of the state who work to make a living farming and ranching.

The Money Questions Still Need Attention:

In spite of the known necessity of cutting $11 Million off the UNR baseline budget, the factual information on how the proposed actions equal progress to accomplishing this object are not known. Based on a response that was given to us in one discussion on this subject, we were told that the University was working on determining the numbers for these proposed actions. Wouldn’t the exact ramifications for each specific proposal already have been assigned a value, if saving money was the desired outcome? Why wouldn’t those details been part of the proposals (example: this action will save this much – this proposal has this estimated outcome) when they were announced?

When you don’t have to deal with one of the reasons for being what you are – you can recreate yourself to be something you’d prefer to become. It is possible that the actual savings of dollars isn’t as much the priority to be achieved as positioning for the future without having to work around a part of the system which has been a roadblock in selling off the assets that University officials want to cash out.

Moving Forward…

We’re far from accomplishing the tasks which are required to provide the complete and successful response for meeting the state’s needs for agricultural education and research, but the way in which various supporters and advocates are coming together bodes well for setting a responsible course for moving forward.

What You Believe About Limiting Government Doesn’t Make You Anti-Government

Doug Busselman — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 14:20:00 GMT

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

While reading this editorial from today’s Las Vegas Sun I was struck with the notion that another myth needs to be dispelled…a proposal which attempts to discredit those of us who consider limited government as a worthy goal to advance. Simply put, our values of government which fit within the boundaries of constitutional parameters and the ability of citizens to afford doesn’t make us anti-government. Government has proper roles and responsibilities to fulfill – and if they were staying within those constraints and additional tax revenue were required to meet the obligations – then prudent action would be for the tax increases to be levied, with all citizens making contribution to cover the costs.

It is our serious contention that such is not the case with the expansions that have been taking place in the size and scope of government. Various “services” made possible by taking money in the form of taxes from one group to cover the wishes or perhaps even needs of others is not the role government is supposed to play, given the nature and construction of the government we have. Our concerns over the transition of government to the role of sole provider to any number of individuals demonstrates the conflicts which exist between what government is supposed to be and what it has become (with the anticipation of even more).

The advancement of the philosophy that the private sector owes government is part of this same misplaced attitude, placing government at the core of our society, using its powers to tax as the funding source and its regulatory authority for expansion and control beyond the limits of appropriate government. We are being forced to serve government’s wants and needs, supposedly for the benefit of those who are unable or unwilling to take responsibility for their own needs or wants. Charity belongs in the private sector’s realm of responsibility not as part of a government mandate.

Problems which are portrayed as government having a lack of resources to provide services imply that all services provided or desired from government are “essential” services. Here is where the public focus needs to start…identifying what the services deemed “essential” are to be. Then the criteria need to be developed which provides the basis for evaluating how public objectives will be measured in order to make certain we are getting our money’s worth. Throughout this process the consideration of private sector and individual roles/responsibilities need to be the benchmark against which need for government involvement has to be weighed. If an individual taking responsibility for themselves or their family’s needs/wants will preclude a government program – there should be no reason for that type of government program to be instituted or maintained. Likewise, if a private enterprise venture can accomplish the benefits of a service provided by a government sector bureaucrat – replacement of the bureaucrat or not ever starting the bureaucracy should be the approach to be taken.

The constant refrain of needing government to do more and the automatic response of requiring more tax revenue to accomplish these perceived needs must be met with the simple and direct reply of “No”. Yes, I was there when one of our state Senators made the pronouncement on the Senate floor this past Special Legislative Session that “No” is not a responsible or appropriate point of view to have. However, I also suffer from the misconception that government is accountable to citizens – not the other way around…

The Progressives’ War Against Business

Doug Busselman — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 15:07:00 GMT

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

There currently is a lot of talk about “fair” in Nevada. “Fair” as in the payment of “fair share” of taxes. Senate Majority Leader Stephen Horsford, a strong advocate of growing Nevada government to levels not possible with the current tax structure, is hard at work putting in place the pieces to give us a more “fair” tax structure. In truth that “fair” is about getting everything from everybody and taking care of the public sector at the expense of those who currently do pay the tab for Nevada government’s quest for funds and will be required to do more. Senator Horsford will be assisted in his endeavor to drain the resources necessary for a healthy business environment by relying on his friends with the Nevada Teachers’ Union and others who decry the circumstances of not having enough government payouts.

The natural inclination for taxes is the desire to have someone else do the paying and using the effective tools of vilification, promoting their “general” welfare and portraying business as the greedy who won’t fork over their cash – the Nevada champions of redistribution are pressing forward in their campaign. Lest you think that I’m alone in my observations of this approach, I recommend Mr. Cook’s perspective, shared in the March 7th, Las Vegas Review-Journal.

While indicating their interests in bringing more business to Nevada, in order to diversify the state’s economy, the real reason has more to do with obtaining more sources for their plundering. Kinda makes you wonder why a business might want to come here. Perhaps the myth that Nevada’s taxation system isn’t as big a hit to the bottom-line might pass the smell test – then again. (please take note where Nevada ranks with our neighbors and the alternatives that some might select in trying to keep their business from going upside down on the profit/loss statements).

Meanwhile, in the real world where business already has their hands full trying to get by – the results of that struggle remain rather poignant. Perhaps those who can’t get deep enough into the private sectors' wallets might want to take note.

For What It Is Worth – Priorities For University of Nevada’s College of Agriculture

Doug Busselman — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 12:21:00 GMT

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

As part of the on-going process to deal with the proposed closure for Nevada’s College of Agriculture, Biotechnology and Natural Resources (CABNR) there are lots of different ideas. Those making the decisions for the University will have to respond to the $11 Million that needs to be cut regardless of the very strong desire for keeping the College of Agriculture…especially since agriculture is a very significant corner stone in the foundation of what a Land Grant University is supposed to be all about.

Just saying you want to keep the College of Agriculture doesn’t get the $11 Million saved. The approach taken by University officials to establish a set of priorities that fit what they want their future to be is also noteworthy and commendable – even if agriculture is on the outside looking in for what those priorities are…

Not having the exact details of what each of the specifics in their announced plans get you (in dollar savings terms) – this list of possible rankings might have consequences for further reductions elsewhere, but the general idea I’m trying to project is that these concepts need attention…with more information required to put them into a final form for complete consideration.

Number 1 Priority: Agricultural Research – this may or may not include having the Main Station farm still in operation, although the first choice would be to keep it going and use it for real live agricultural research that matters to Nevada farmers and ranchers. This should have an applied research focus with an involvement and interrelationship developed with agricultural producers to identify their production and business enterprise needs.

If the plan is approved to go forward with the selling off of the Main Station Farm in Reno, there needs to be controls put in place (probably legislative) to restrict the ability of the University System to obtain the proceeds of the sale. A trust fund should be established from the proceeds of these assets to be used to benefit agricultural education and research for Nevada.

From an organizational perspective, the idea of putting agricultural research under the Vice President for Research might be a workable approach, if the attention is given to using research facilities for production agricultural needs and establishing the framework of the connections for identifying those needs is pursued.

Number 2 Priority: The Department of Resource Economics – this function is extremely critical for the long-term benefit of Nevada agriculture, regardless of the commodity interest in question. While it might not continue as part of the College of Agriculture, there should be a section maintained somewhere in the UNR system for a group of go-to agricultural economists who are capable and interested in supporting the needs of Nevada agricultural producers. As was noted in the materials for evaluation of the work carried out by this department…

“The department has a significant grant record with half of the grant awards over the last three years going to two Extension specialists. The department has a strong research publication record.”

Based on this perspective, the possible solution would be to keep the Department intact (although there may be some replacement work required for persons leaving) and include it in the earlier mentioned Ag Research Center.

Number 3 Priority: Agricultural Animal Science – this element and set of study needs to be maintained in some form within the University program of education…at least to the degree of attention for a BS degree. Livestock production does constitute the largest segment of Nevada’s agricultural economy and having the course work and research capacity to provide necessary support should be a must for going forward – with or without a College of Agriculture to house the discipline. Should the decision of going forward not include a College of Agriculture, there still needs to be a department status or some other institutional framework to collect the teaching and research talents needed to provide education and research outputs that matter.

Number 4 Priority: Plant Science – this area of need doesn’t exist now, but need to be instituted. Nevada agriculture does grow things and those doing so have been without support since past College of Agriculture leadership decided to play their part in making the College of Agriculture irrelevant, doing away with the Plant Science Dept. Whether it is commodity level alfalfa production or vegetable/horticultural, direct to the consumer crop production…Nevada needs to have attention with agronomist (no there isn’t one now in the make-up of what we have), a soil scientist involved with production agriculture and similar experts who are capable of providing practical training and development support. As has been the context of other recommendations – implementing a Plant Science discipline should be provided for regardless of whether there is a College of Agriculture… or not.

Number 5 Priority: Department of Natural Resources – this component of the current CABNR system seems to be included in the steps going forward, housed in the College of Science. The key consideration for how natural resource needs will mesh with production agricultural needs is a critical concern that needs attention. Science is supposed to be an unbiased pursuit of facts without political considerations. If that were true in real life there wouldn’t be a concern of institutionalizing the areas of range science under the umbrella of the College of Science.

It would be difficult to keep a straight face while trying to believe that the move won’t have some anti-agricultural and negative production ramifications. There are strong advocates within the science community who do bring their biases to school with them…and from an agricultural perspective we need to have our own team of biased thinkers who are working to counteract the biased perspectives operating against us.

Summary:

This completes the list of points that I have to contribute to the discussion of where things go from here.

I recognize that others have their own lists and rankings and for some keeping the College of Agriculture as an institution has a strong basis for meeting the obligations of being a true Land Grant University. My perspective is more from a functional vantage point, being more concerned about the system for delivery of outputs and the interaction of agricultural producers with the institutions, however structured they might be.

I fully understand that by putting these ideas down in this fashion there will be those who want to take exception and I welcome that type of feedback and response with more ideas and approaches gaining attention. I’m not here to say that these ideas are the Right solution(s) – just that they are the priorities that I see as being important in going forward.

In some respects I don’t see the University of Nevada system being capable for being what Nevada farmers and ranchers need. Perhaps those needs should be factored in by elevating the Great Basin College to a higher profile, providing the necessary agricultural education from there. I also don’t hold any ties to UNR continuing as a Land Grant University. I contend that if they don’t warrant the designation by their performance – they ought not be permitted to continue with that distinction.

Tough choices lie ahead no matter what direction is selected. Those who care need to get actively involved in being part of the decision process and interacting in the process to put forward their ideas and priorities.

The Challenges Facing Nevada Agriculture With/Without University Of Nevada’s “Help”

Doug Busselman — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 14:47:00 GMT

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

The truth is that Nevada agriculture cares a whole lot more about the University of Nevada – than the University of Nevada cares about agriculture. Many of the state’s industry leaders are products of the College of Agriculture when it was something. Much of the frustrations over the years has come from it no longer being something and now is proposed to be nothing…gone.

The original idea for Land Grant Universities was to have these institutions be a support system, helping agriculture and other core and fundamental sectors be prosperous. Looking around the country there are such institutions throughout the country who take their responsibilities very seriously. Here in Nevada the trend has been to try and go through the motions, collect the checks and when push comes to shove – discard agriculture all together.

There have been readers here in the last few days who have pointed out that if I and my writing were to be more inclined to increasing Nevada taxes, perhaps something could be worked out to help the University officials find a way to have the financial wherewithal to keep the College of Agriculture. I have responded that the organizational position I’ve documented against tax increases has nothing to do with the cuts being proposed by the University officials and I’m not being two-faced in wanting a viable College of Agriculture and no tax increases.

Yes, I get the part that taxes fund state expenditures…like the College of Agriculture (and other worthwhile University pursuits). That doesn’t mean though that those in charge should be expecting the blank check for more that seems to be their automatic requirement.

In addition to the proposed discarding of one of the core areas of responsibilities – agriculture – from its Land Grant University we’ve also had the chance to deal with the University system teaming up with Senator Harry Reid in working to destroy one of the most productive agricultural irrigation systems in the state. First, playing money laundering agent to get around legislative prohibitions for spending federal allocations and later involvement in a sham of an environmental impact study that cleared the way for other players in the process to meet their obligations without actually having to determine anything in the realm of accountable and traceable linkages.

Doing without a College of Agriculture and not getting what the state’s farmers and ranchers need by way of agricultural research and development assistance might not be the worst thing to be endured, if we could somehow get those involved from going out of their way to make matters worse.

For many hardworking agricultural producers not having a College of Agriculture or a Main Station Experiment Station probably doesn’t matter – it’s not like they will be doing without for the first time. The real impact will continue to be the drain by those who have to leave the state to get the quality agricultural education not available in Nevada (again, not a real new development). Will they be able to leave, get the education they need and come home to engage in building a future for Nevada agriculture?

I guess that all depends on who the University and anti-agricultural interests decide to go after next…

Sage Grouse Listing Decision And The Themes Of The Day

Doug Busselman — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 12:21:00 GMT

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

Yesterday’s announcement of the listing decision for the Sage Grouse carried a variety of themes. I had the chance to listen in on the media teleconference where Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar made the announcement that this time around the bird was found to warrant protection under the Endangered Species Act, but would be precluded from a full listing because of its risk ranking. This puts the bird on the candidate species list with on-going management and conservation efforts a priority for those who would like to keep the bird off the full list. Using the U.S. Fish Wildlife Service’s 1-12 ranking system, Sage Grouse drew an 8 however, another population of the species, located in the Mono Basin area (along the border between Nevada and California) was given a 3 ranking. This distinct population group’s rating means it will be even more critically in need of conservation attention.

One of the themes pointed out in Salazar’s announcement and carried through with the others who were on hand to participate (acting head of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Bob Abby, national director of the Bureau of Land Management) dealt with renewable energy development. It is very clear that the tightrope being walked pits the political correctness of the green energy zeal being pursued by the guy in the White House and his fellow true believers while at the same time trying to keep federally managed lands from being managed in a way that the Sage Grouse is put at further risk. While the actual science isn’t all the way researched out on the impact of renewable energy development, there is enough indications that getting where alternative energy folks want to go is not going to be an easy trek to make…tippy-toeing around and away from core Sage Grouse habitats.

This carefulness requirement triggered another theme of how “smart” development efforts were going to be, evaluating plans and avoiding the core areas so we’d be able to have our cake and eat it too. The core area idea seems to have become a new theme that has taken shape in the BLM approach to their land management work on Sage Grouse.

Having been involved with Nevada’s Sage Grouse Conservation since then Governor Kenny Guinn assembled a group of interested citizens in 2000, the idea for management that emerged from that working team was Population Management Units (PMU’s – since everything related to government stuff has to be considered as an acronym). These areas made up significant habitat areas that combined leks (where male birds strut during the breeding season to lure in interested females), nearby nesting areas as well as brood-rearing and young raising tracks of land. From this idea the next generation of management emphasis seems to be figuring out the specific places on the ground that are really, really important to keep in place and working – the core areas.

Those who consider the Sage Grouse at risk are primarily focused on habitat and controlling land management activities. The bird is a landscape species, meaning it covers a lot of ground and needs lots of adjoined habitat for its survival – a perfect combination for those who would like to control what happens (or more precisely, what doesn’t happen) on extremely large areas of land.

Taking a historical perspective, which those who want the world to look like it did before white settlers showed up and ruined everything, the sage brush community (Sage Grouse require sage brush to live since it not only makes up their home – it is also almost their complete diet) has shrunk by more than 50 percent. We’ve taken out sage brush to build roads, to build fields, to build cities and other human-required habitat things. There have also been natural issues like extremely large wildfires with total acres destroyed measured in 100,000 acre blocks. Other impacts by Mother Nature herself have included expansions of Pinyon-Juniper woodlands, invading huge tracts of land and taking over (and wiping out) sage brush areas. In some cases the sage brush areas have gotten old and over-matured and became less productive for Sage Grouse well-being.

All in all there are lots of things that need attention to protect the good stuff and enhance the quality of habitat where it needs to be better. The listing decision, to do what was decided, gives people the opportunity to continue and expand on the work that’s been going on over the past decade.

In all likelihood the decision will also have additional themes still to be played out, using the leverage as the next new thing to litigate about in order to force viewpoints forward in the never-ending mission of forcing us to become what others want our world to be all about. In the final analysis the Endangered Species Act isn’t about the animals, plants or other species in question – it is about gaining control of people’s lives and how they interact with their natural resources. That’s a theme that will continue to be the primary purpose for everything else that takes place from here on out…

No, You Can’t Have It Both Ways

Doug Busselman — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 03:45:00 GMT

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

As an advocate for limited government, who has not made it much of a secret for not wanting to see taxes increased, a number of our regular readers (and those who have made a point of clicking on our address for the attention we’ve been giving the proposal for the closure of the Nevada College of Agriculture, Biotechnology and Natural Resources) – the suggestion has been made that perhaps I was “sucking and blowing at the same time.” (This was an adage of a cranky old boss who didn’t have much time for those who wanted things both ways.)

Because all one has to do to check on my positions is scroll down, you will see the posts that I have made regarding the proposal to close CABNR as well as close the Main Station Farm (likely selling it off for the right price down the road). One could take the perspective from these posts that the decision to propose closing was not welcomed with open arms, however, I believe if you check closely…at no point in these posts did I say that closing CABNR was not an appropriate action for the University administration to take. You can also go through the archives to find a very clear and consistent point of view against tax increases.

With regard to the proposed closure of CABNR, I have stressed that there should be consequences for choosing to not have a College of Agriculture…I have pointed out that the Nevada Constitution says we should have a College of Agriculture…I have indicated that without a College of Agriculture and meaningful agricultural research program, the principles of a Land Grant University were dubious – but, and I’m still checking my past work…did I ever say that closing the College should be off limits for those who need to make the choices that are required of them to meeting their financial constraints. Where did I say that the cuts required should come from anyone else?

I can also say that in spite of the cuts made to some areas of state spending, during the just concluded special session, our Farm Bureau organizational position (which I have documented throughout this communication venue) has been and continues to be that taxes should not be increased. If things we care about need to be cut – should taxes be raised? Our position has been to not increase taxes.

When taxes have been increased (and there has been no shortage of tax increases going back to the 2003 Legislative Session) and funding flowed to the University System in significant amounts – did the College of Agriculture, Agricultural Research and other program areas that matter to farmers and ranchers “cash in” with untold gains? Frankly, if it happened that way…I don’t recall. I also don’t recall during times when funding increases were coming to the University System did the quality of agriculture education or agriculture research have any degree of difference.

When there was funding, agriculture wasn’t a priority for the University to receive those funds – when funding is short, agriculture isn’t a priority for the University to keep… So when tax increases are the selected alternatives – agriculture doesn’t gain anything…when tax increases aren’t chosen and cuts are required – agriculture gets the cuts…

And the problem of our not supporting tax increases would be?

Not having a College of Agriculture because we won’t bend to the raise taxes crowd is a very distasteful choice…but it would be doubtful that a change in our position and supporting tax increases would make a difference in the outcomes to be decided. If it did make a difference, what would that say about those making the choices?

The choice for what happens going forward is in the hands of those who will evaluate the merits of the proposal and make the choice that they decide. If the choices are not to meet the requirements of a Land Grant University, every effort should be made to have that status taken away. If UNR doesn’t deserve such status – it shouldn’t have that status and repayment (as spelled out) should be made accordingly.

A “Let’s Pretend” Land Grant University Not Acceptable

Doug Busselman — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 13:46:00 GMT

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

Since the announcement of the proposed idea of ending the University of Nevada, College of Agriculture, the matter of a suitable and effective response has been the number one priority. Although the status quo of the current educational opportunities provided by the College of Agriculture, Biotechnology and Natural Resources have not been what most Nevada agricultural interests would consider completely acceptable – not having a College of Agriculture offers even less opportunity.

We’ve been told and it has been pointed out again here, that the plan of the University of Nevada officials is to continue to be a Land Grant University, maintaining the College of Cooperative Extension and the Ag Experiment System. It isn’t explained fully how the emphasis on agricultural research will be accomplished, especially given the plans to “close” the Main Station Experiment Station in Reno.

Some would suggest that closing the College of Agriculture is more about the linkage to the Main Station Experiment Station than anything else. University officials have been drooling over the prospects of doing something other than agricultural research on that facility for some time (cue the cash-register sounds and prepare to back up the Brink’s truck). Taking out the organizational structure which operates the station and there is no reason for the experiment station to be there.

How the needs of agricultural producers will be met in regard to agricultural research is very uncertain, even though we’re supposed to rest confident that the function is going to be continued. Perhaps pretending to be a Land Grant University is a priority even if actually being such an institution isn’t – afterall the provisions of the Nevada Constitution and the Morrill Act require that failure to operate as a Land Grant University means paying back the federal government all the funding that was provided to establish the institution. Perhaps some research is needed on what that amount of repayment might be. Further research into the actual details of criteria of what is a real Land Grant University and whether there is an evaluation process to determine an institution’s worthiness might also be in order.

Although we really haven’t seen the actual financial details for the proposed actions, it is completely understandable that actions need to be taken to address the $11 Million reductions that are necessary to meet the financial obligations of the University. It is also completely understandable that appropriate priorities be funded in order to be the best institution as possible within the restraints of the funding system. It is also somewhat understandable (especially given the status quo) that the College of Agriculture might not be one of the priority areas in the vision of what the University elites would like to have for their institution.

There are ramifications for all decisions and in making choices some things might be connected that you don’t want. However, if you aren’t going to be something you are supposed to be -- you don’t get to pretend that you are simply so you don’t have to incur the consequences of making the change you are intent on pursuing.

If UNR doesn’t want to be the Land Grant University it was created to be, let’s get on with determining how they are going to pay back the obligations required to not be the Land Grant University for Nevada…

Working On The Response To Address College Of Agriculture Closure

Doug Busselman — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 14:31:00 GMT

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

The answers to the proposal for closing the University of Nevada, Reno College of Agriculture, Biotechnology and Natural Resources (CABNR) have many possibilities with a variety of degrees of effectiveness. Yesterday, my suggestion was to consider the needs of Nevada agriculture and make the plans for a response in light of attempting to get us to where we need to be.

We should recognize that a fight to the death in defense of the status quo would be an appropriate. Whether the name “agriculture” is in the title for the college or the research organization that’s connected to UNR doesn’t make what has been going on the stuff farmers and ranchers need or necessarily want. Many of the current Nevada agricultural sector attended UNR and the College of Agriculture during the Golden Age of the school and remember the opportunities for the agricultural education that they received. These same alums have been frustrated over the inability of their children, interested in production agriculture, to get the same type of education. For the most part, with few key areas of study, if you wanted a college education in agricultural studies, you have been required to look to some other state and some other institution.

The same has been true in regard to agricultural research. Pursuit of research dollars that didn’t connect to applied agricultural needs has been the focus of the Agricultural Research folks for some time. Again, in some instances there have been specific studies and projects which have retained the practical needs of Nevada farmers and ranchers in mind, but those considerations have not made up the bulk of the research program. The system of Experimental Stations around the state (including the Reno, Main Station) have mostly been used for farming and providing the resources of livestock feed and livestock for other research projects.

How the recommendations under consideration fit the requirements of the Land Grant University criteria is questionable. Having been told that because Cooperative Extension remains and the Ag Research portion will be retained (except for the likely real estate transactions that UNR highups have been drooling over in regard to the Main Station for many years) the question remains what meaningful and significant aspect of being a Land Grant University can we expect to come from the transition that is being considered? If the purpose is to pretend and go through the motions to keep getting the benefits associated with being a Land Grant University – that’s what has been going on for at least the past 20 plus years…let’s quit pretending and stop cashing the Land Grant University checks that are no longer deserved.

While reviewing various other responses that have been offered by others, I couldn’t help but notice the brilliant point observed by one person offering their perspective in the Reno Gazette Journal –

Someone named “ryanw1282 ” wrote:

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

ARTICLE 11, SECTION 4 Sec: 4. Establishment of state university; control by board of regents. The Legislature shall provide fo...r the establishment of a State University which shall embrace departments for Agriculture, Mechanic Arts, and Mining to be controlled by a Board of Regents whose duties shall be prescribed by Law.

ARTICLE 11, SECTION 8[...] And the Legislature shall provide that if through neglect or any other contingency, any portion of the fund so set apart [for a college for the benefit of Agriculture[,] the Mechanics Arts, and including Military tactics], shall be lost or misappropriated, the State of Nevada shall replace said amount so lost or misappropriated in said fund so that the principal of said fund shall remain forever undiminished[.]

Whoever you might be “ryanw1282” – I salute you for your insight in pointing out the small detail of what is written in the Nevada State Constitution. I have no doubt that University elites will find a way around that detail and will have some response to mitigate their actions regardless of what ought to be required, but through your alert and public documentation people will know and understand the portrayal for what it is.

Proposed Closing Of Nevada College Of Agriculture – A Time For Assessment

Doug Busselman — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 16:49:00 GMT

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

President Lincoln is given a great deal of credit for his support for the establishment of the Land Grant University System. As detailed in Wikipedia the 1862 and 1890 versions of the Morrill Act provided the framework for this system…

"The Morrill Acts funded educational institutions by granting federally controlled land to the states for the states to develop or sell to raise funds to establish and endow "land grant" colleges. The mission of these institutions as set forth in the 1862 Act is to focus on the teaching of agriculture, science and engineering as a response to the industrial revolution and changing social class rather than higher education's historic core of classical studies.[1]"

On March 1, 2010 the University of Nevada, Reno (Nevada’s Land Grant University) put forward the recommendation for continued review the proposal to dispose of the College of Agriculture, Biotechnology and Natural Resources. The move comes on the heels of the 6.9 percent budget cutbacks made by the Nevada Legislature in their February Special Session and the proposed actions are aimed at accomplishing UNR’s $11 Million required reduction in base funding. In essence University officials need to get their priorities in alignment and Nevada agriculture isn’t included in those priorities.

The actual set of proposed plans, provided to us by Marc Johnson, UNR Provost, are as follows…

Close the College of Agriculture, Biotechnology and Natural Resources as a separate college resulting in personnel and operating savings.
Close the Department of Animal Biotechnology and associated positions and operating expenditures. Move one position to fill a vacancy in the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences to sustain range ecology and management.
Close the Department of Resource Economics and associated positions and operating expenditures. Retain the Center of Economic Development in the Business Services Group or Extension and make one position whole in the Department of Sociology to sustain the Applied Statistics Program.
Merge the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences into the Department of Biology in the College of Science, retaining Experiment Station and Extension investments.
Merge the Department of Nutrition into the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, retaining Experiment Station and Extension investments and reporting to the College of Science.

Provost Johnson also provided the details of how the review process will be conducted in regard to the evaluating the proposed actions…

The curricular review proposal is released Monday, March 1, 2010
Units respond to proposed program closing by Friday, March 26, 2010
Colleges respond and vote on the proposal by Friday, April 9, 2010
The Faculty Senate reviews the proposal and other supplied information and makes a recommendation to the President and Provost by May 7, 2010.
The President and Provost make their final decisions and propose appropriate program closures to the Board of Regents by May 14, 2010.
The Board of Regents decides on program closures in early June.
Employees related to closing programs are notified of their termination by June 30, 2010 and provided with rights of reconsideration and notification.

The criteria to be the foundation for the proposed actions include:

Degrees granted
Enrollment in the major
Student Full Time Equivalent production
Scholarship productivity
External scholarship grant award and expenditure performance
“Connectedness” or importance to the fulfillment of other programs at the University
Centrality to mission
National and international uniqueness of the program
Other considerations to preserve complementary elements of programs

Where Does Nevada Agriculture Go From Here?

In response to the proposed actions by the University of Nevada, our state’s agricultural organizations and the farm and ranch families that they represent need to evaluate the needs and wishes of production agriculture. Comparisons of these needs with possible changes in light of the University’s plans could take us down various paths, including the potential of seeking inclusion of the industry’s needs in the reorganization process. The response could also include putting greater levels of attention on alternative sources.

We would invite your ideas and input, offered by way of comments here…

Are Nevada Legislators Part Vampire?

Doug Busselman — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 13:59:00 GMT

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

I fully understand the question posed in the headline might be considered as a negative slam over the extra fees connected with the just completed Nevada Legislative session and how acquiring those extra dollars from selected providers seemed to be less than a completely willing donation. However, that really isn’t my point. Having spent most of Sunday in the Legislative building (during daylight hours) and not seeing much by way of legislative actions, things pick up and start happening after the sun goes down.

Although another couple of commitments kept me from attending the Saturday round, the legislative activity on the Senate floor at least got on into the night and wrapped up around midnight, according to the reports that I heard.

During the 2009 Nevada Legislative Session, the work after most of the behind closed door meetings, took place later into the night.

Would the results be different or better if the legislating took place during daylight hours? It’s hard to say I suppose and impolite perhaps to raise the question.

Our elected representatives have worked hard to do their best – during the 2010 Special Session and in past sessions as well. The issues they wrestle with are serious and the process requires lots of give and take as well as considerations of details that sometimes seem mind-numbing. I also fully understand that just because legislators aren’t on the floor or in public meetings during the day, that doesn’t mean that they aren’t working diligently behind the closed doors on arranging the materials and ideas that will be used when they get down to work – after the sun goes down…but, maybe we could look at switching the schedule to the deal-making and logistics getting worked out until the wee hours of the morning and the legislating taking place on a day-light schedule. I know it would have cut into staying current with the Olympic Hockey Game on Sunday, but that’s what Internet computer connections and ear-phones are for.

It’s probably selfish of me to ask for such a rescheduling and possible legislative use of day-time operations, but some of us have to get up early in the morning and staying up all night to try and keep an eye on what our elected representatives are up to is really cutting into the time required for my beauty sleep…no wonder I look the way I do!

The Unwillingness Of Our Elected Leaders To Be Fiscally Responsible

Doug Busselman — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 16:17:00 GMT

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

The “vision” for Nevada’s future was clearly on display on Friday afternoon’s show in the Nevada Senate. The majority leader of the state Senate and several of his associates made it abundantly clear that in their view the purpose of business and the private sector is to give, give and give some more to finance their desires to spend, spend and spend some more. In spite of a Billion dollar tax increase in the waning days of the legislative session that concluded less than nine months ago, the spending authorized by these same elected “leaders” has exceeded the revenue generating capabilities of the tax structure. Their first response is that those who pay should pay some more and their second response is that we have to change the tax structure to make it possible for even greater contributions from more business sectors than already paying.

Reductions in the spending or requiring greater degrees of accountability for the amounts of spending already flowing are only on the list of “things to do” to the degree that the spending reductions can be kept to a minimum (if there is any reduction at all) and where accountability can be given enough lip service to chase more federal dollars to provide for even greater spending binges.

It galls those who champion the cause of government being the end-all-and-be-all that those intended to contribute may not have the financial wherewithal to give more than they are already giving. Like spoiled children who throw temper tantrums over not getting all the candy they want, we saw the display on the Senate floor yesterday of those who simply won’t accept that there are limits to the ability of business enterprises to pay greater amounts to support a public sector and the chosen elite who aren’t willing to go without.

The message was “never mind that your businesses might have to lay off more employees because of your inability to generate the necessary revenue to sustain itself – how can you not give more to keep teachers and other public sector employees from having cutbacks?” This same theme was made very clear in the 2009 Nevada Legislative session by the same Senate Majority Leader and his fellow believers in government being more important than those who pay the taxes.

The lectures delivered by those who “represent” us need to be responded to with a simple and clear response – government exist to serve the private sector…not the other way around! If you can’t or won’t live within the ability of taxpayers to provide, we first must work through the election process to make sure that you aren’t in charge of the decisions required to have our government being responsible. We must also work to put in place a safe guard that prohibits legislators from overspending.

Yesterday’s demonstration and for the most part the conduct of this group of legislative “leadership” further reinforced the importance of the 2010 Elections and why necessary reforms and fiscal responsibility cannot be achieved with the same powers in force. The much talked about “table” we are supposed to gather around in order to move forward is really the ballot box and the election process sending individuals to represent us who understand that government spending is even a greater responsibility than that required by the private sector to make that spending possible.

The Facts That Your Elected Representatives Hope You Don’t Learn

Doug Busselman — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 14:06:00 GMT

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

The show that has been playing itself out over the past three weeks, with the Nevada Legislative Interim Finance Committee hearings and the past week with the Nevada Special Session, has been about portraying the nearly impossible cuts that Legislators will have to make in order to fill the nearly $900 Million hole their spending authorizations have caused. As Geoffrey Lawrence from the Nevada Policy Research Institute points out here the actual actions don’t match up with the spin being placed on the way in which the process is proceeding. Although you would think that every man, woman (and especially) child will be devastated by the final actions the legislature is being forced to reduce spending – when it’s all said and done, far more will be raised in revenue than what gets cut in state spending.

It’s appropriate that Lawrence notes the doublespeak reference, taken from George Orwell’s “1984” classic, because that’s where public policy has gone, twisting the actions of reality to sound more pleasing to those being sheared so government can have more to give through its redistribution efforts.

Not only will the government spending continue (perhaps on a four-day, 10 hour spending basis) but the base for the next biennium budget will be assumed to require increases at even greater levels. The spending gap between those higher expectations for greater government expenditures will also be portrayed against the expiration of the Billion dollar tax increase passed in the 2009 session and the absence of the federal bail-out money that was provided for the current biennium. Already the platform is being constructed for the mother of all tax increases (excuse me, I meant “revenue stabilizations”) which will be at center stage for the 2011 Legislative gathering.

Those required to “step up” “pay their fair share” are being lined up through the proper vilification steps of the political posturing. Our “broader tax base” awaits us, necessary because Nevada government’s spending means so much to those who authorize the spending by virtue of the empowerment provided by those who the money is spent on.

Without major changes through the election process and changes of limiting fiscal irresponsibility by some formula that is hardwired into restricting the continued spending operations – we are going to keep getting what we have today…an economy not capable of providing private sector growth because of government’s insatiable appetite for more.

Costs Cutting Not The Priority For The Special Session

Doug Busselman — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:05:00 GMT

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

The projections indicate that there is roughly a $900 Million difference between what the Nevada Legislature approved for spending in the 2009 Nevada Legislative Session and the revenue being achieved by the taxes making up the stream of income for state coffers. This shortfall clearly shows that in spite of a Billion dollar tax increase, also passed by the 2009 Nevada Legislature, the economy which pays for government spending isn’t capable of producing what the legislators want to spend.

It probably isn’t fair to judge the lack of progress of the first day of the 2010 Special Session too critically. Yes, the day was spent rehashing the same areas that have been the focus of the past couple of weeks of the Interim Finance Committee, but officially the non-committee members of the Legislature needed to get the same background, on the record, for going forward. Also in spite of the efforts to try and figure out the deals that are needed to arrange for a solution to the hole, if things were already settled and they were down to voting – we’d be upset about that too.

From the paperwork floating around in the hallways of the Legislative Building it would seem that the odds are that the legislature will take the Governor’s tax increase proposals and increase them, possibly digging deeper into the miner’s pockets to the tune of $100 Million (instead of the Governor’s $50 Million bump). There is also an indication that the cuts to the educational community will be halved from the Governor’s 10 percent proposal – gotta keep the teachers union from getting even more angry and need to keep the educational system’s elite from dealing with the economic reality that everyone else is having to cope with.

The plan is also all about taking any money that shows up on a state government balance sheet – never mind if those funds were paid as fees for other purposes…making the cuts that are necessary just isn’t in the cards with the folks who are in charge of deciding what gets decided.

It will take two Republican Senators to vote with the majority party to make the tax increase project possible. The probability is that when the deals are made and finalized, the Senate votes will be what they need to be in order to raise taxes on Nevada’s private sector again. How long that is all going to take will possibly be another element for the folks doing the maneuvering to play on, clouding their slam-dunk tax increase in the smoke of the foot-draggers not being responsible.

Hopefully taxpayers will see through the ruse and false choices being put forth and clearly recognize that unless different selections are made at the ballot box in November, the 2011 Nevada Legislative Session will be a taxfest like none other. The majority party, in control of the Nevada Legislature, believes that government comes first and that the private sector should be required to pay whatever they say the costs should be.

A proactive, taxpayer response is required to offer any hope for fiscal responsibility. It’s time to go to work on launching a campaign for reform geared to placing limits on the ability of spending and taxing us deeper into the hole.

Nevada and Nationally -- Who We Have Become

Doug Busselman — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 22:08:00 GMT

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

“…the most important change which extensive government control produces is a psychological change, an alteration in the character of the people. This is necessarily a slow affair, a process which extends not over a few years but perhaps over one or two generations. The important point is that the political ideals of a people and its attitude toward authority are as much the effect as the cause of the political institutions under which it lives.”
F.A. Hayek, The Road To Serfdom

When reading that quotation it is difficult to not translate its meaning to our current situations at the state and national level. As a society we have gotten so accustomed to looking to our government leaders for salvation from whatever we believe to be our problem (or they convince us is our problem that they are solving) that we never get to looking into the mirror to see who should really be addressing the conditions we need to give attention to.

Having watched several weeks of the Nevada Legislature’s Interim Finance Committee and the show that has been put on to convince us that no one can afford to endure the spending reductions required to fill the nearly $900 Million budget hole – we’re now in the 2010 Special Session replaying the same saga and hearing the same concepts extolled without any real solution. College students were featured in the Senate Committee of the Whole that I sat through, telling legislators that “we’re hoping you guys will understand how we can’t afford to pay more for the degrees we’re going after.” “We’re the future of Nevada – don’t cut us!”

Although not having the opportunity to follow-up on the testimony – one has to wonder what happens when business enterprises are driven out of the state or caused to fail because of tax expenses that the market can’t support…what future will there be for these educated students (who might still not have gotten their degree) when the jobs they are ready to be hired for don’t exist? For everyone but the legislators who are in charge, it seems rather obvious that killing off the taxpayers because tax spenders can’t get enough…might not be a solution. Then again they are only trying to extract the “fair share” of anyone capable of being vilified into submission…

When Hayek wrote “The Road To Serfdom” he was attempting to convince the leaders of the 1940’s that going down the road to central planning and control would require measures to be carried out that would seriously and negatively impact freedom of those being governed. Here we are now, a couple of generations down the road and seeing in front of us the reality of his words playing out before us.

Celebrating The Success Of Our Nation’s Food Production Capabilities

Doug Busselman — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 00:03:00 GMT

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

When the Food-Check Out project first began it had an emphasis of showing the affordability of our country’s food supply. The event was timed out to demonstrate in terms of the calendar how quickly the average American family would earn enough income to meet the requirements of purchasing their entire year’s needs. Although our food bill continues to be an extremely affordable part of our budgets the current economic conditions are requiring an even broader set of needs to be met.

In celebrating 2010 Food Check-Out Week, the American Farm Bureau Federation Women’s Leadership Committee is working to go beyond just letting consumers know the benefits of our country’s food production system. This year’s project “Stretching Your Grocery Dollar With Healthy, Nutritious Food” is aimed at equipping food buyers with the information they need to use their food dollars for maximum results.

Drawing attention to and recognition of the accomplishments of those involved in our nation’s food production is still important, as was noted by United States Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack.

The work of building relationships and presenting information which offers a more complete understanding of the contributions made by farm and ranch families extends beyond a single week in February, but since we’re in Food Check-Out Week 2010 – let’s take stock of how fortunate we are to have the system we have, providing affordable, safe, nutritious food supplies with an abundance and variety unsurpassed anywhere else in the world.