NVFBBLOG.ORG

An Agenda For Building Meaningful Economic Wellbeing

Doug Busselman — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 13:06:00 GMT

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

This morning’s reading materials included a news release from the national Democrats on how Senator Harry Reid has introduced his energy bill which will create 150,000 jobs by doing things like somehow making homes more energy efficient and punishing British Petroleum for the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. I also read a news release from a joint group of folks working on increasing our country’s exports.

Despite not being an economist by training, I would guess that if we could double our nation’s exports, there would be jobs established in the process, although I don’t have the ability to come up with the exact number as is the case with Senator Reid’s introduction of legislation in the U.S. Senate. (Although I could just make up a number -- since I think that's the same technique used by those who work in Washington, D.C. and are involved in telling us how many jobs their legislation will create...)

I might also venture to guess that if our country’s agricultural, manufacturing and service industries were able to accomplish the objective of doubling our exports – the jobs created might actually be more lasting than the government make-work created from taxpayers forking over their hard-earned money to provide for the redistribution plans of the ruling regime in charge of our national government. I suppose it wouldn’t be quite as politically correct given the nature of enterprises which produce profits through producing and selling items that others purchase because they need or want to buy, but it would still seem to be more real economic enhancement than what the energy bill will actually deliver.

I understand that we are in the cycle (that every-other-year time-frame where those we elect to be our representatives need to convince enough people that they are doing their jobs so they will be re-elected) where it is necessary to create the impression that government has the ability to create economic well-being by taking money from those who have it and giving it to those who don’t – but, has anybody been paying attention to the fact that this hasn’t been actually working? Has anybody paid any attention to the way that government has been spending and in spite of making up new metrics (“jobs saved”) our economy is still not performing in a manner that those who actually create jobs (by producing and selling products or services that people purchase because they need or want to buy) are able to provide employment?

Growing government’s ability to take away more of the private sector’s resources (through increased taxes and greater regulatory burdens) will not accomplish the desired results of creating a healthy and productive economy. We have plenty of taxes and regulatory burdens already and it hasn’t seemed that the taxes are enough to pay for the government spending orgies that have been taking place and the regulations that are already in place aren’t being carried out to accomplish the protections they were supposed to provide. Adding more and more is not going to do anything other than make it less likely that anyone will be able to do anything worthwhile.

It seems that those who have come forward with the proposal to increase our exports are on a much more productive path to building our economy with meaningful steps that can be carried out to accomplish something. Now we need those who are supposed to be representing us to stop doing the things that kill jobs and our economy and start doing the things that create opportunities for productive people to grow us out of the hole we’re in.

It Pays Well To Use The System That Is Supposed To Make Proper Federal Decisions

Doug Busselman — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 23:06:00 GMT

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

On Friday the Nevada Legislature’s Committee on Public Lands will take up an agenda item as part of their Ely meeting hearing details of the way in which the El Paso Corporation that is involved with the Ruby Pipeline bought off a couple of so-called environmental groups to get their silence on the 680-some mile natural gas pipeline. Depending on the information you see it was between $20 and $22 Million for the Western Watershed group and a similar organization in Oregon to drop their opposition to the pipeline.

It would seem that the price for any other project that requires federal approval just went up. Now you have to buy off the anti-management folks in order to get through the system without their tying things up in the appeal and other litigation actions. Western Watersheds will likely use the $20-some Million for their brand of activities aimed at driving livestock grazing from the federal lands.

There is a term for business paying these types of funds in order to be protected from the aggressive use of the system to prevent progress. The word represents what once was considered a crime, but then I would imagine that the organizations which employed these tactics in the past didn’t have the cloak of environmental correctness to provide the cover that this “transaction” involves.

Thank you El Paso Corporation for demonstrating your “concern” for the proper use of federally managed lands and best wishes for your pipeline’s success…as to the methods used to conduct your business -- we are not impressed.

It promises to be an interesting presentation on Friday.

Before You Get Too Carried Away On Believing A Climate Change Bill Is Over For Now

Doug Busselman — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 22:17:00 GMT

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

Over the past few days the sources I follow about what’s going on in Washington, D.C. have been giving regular updates on the back-and-forth of whether something might be possible for the U.S. Senate to take up the Cap and Tax idea in their own legislative proposal. It has been interesting to watch the way that Senator Reid and others have been pointing at the Republicans and blaming them for all the things that the Democratically-dominated U.S. Senate can’t get done – including the legislation on climate change.

While this account in the Huffington Post would seem to offer some good news on how the effort to destroy the economy using Big Brother controls and government-stimulated energy costs increases – hold on, let’s not accept the possible demise of this ill-conceived idea until after January of 2011. If the U.S. Senate passes anything related to energy (probably not a very good idea for anyone who treasures free enterprise) the likely outcome will be a “conference” of some type between what the House passed (Cap and Tax) and whatever the Senate might pass. That would probably be on the docket for a lame-duck, post election session of Congress.

We know that with the bunch of folks leading this Congress, rules don’t mean anything (except if you’re looking for an excuse to blame somebody else for the votes you can’t get because the ideas that are being considered really stink)…so you could easily end up with whatever Obama, Reid and Pelosi want. Is it that long ago to remember what was carried out through the Health Payment legislative process?

Along with keeping an eye on the details that emerge in legislative discussions for a Senate energy proposal, we also need to recognize that those who want to use the power of the federal government to further erode the affordability of necessary energy supplies will continue to work at bringing some type of tax and control package forward – using the scientific theory of climate change as their excuse.

Owning Up To The Death Tax Burden

Doug Busselman — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 13:22:00 GMT

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

Using the legislative process as only he knows how, Nevada’s U.S. Senator Harry Reid is working hard to keep any possible solution for the reinstitution of the Death Tax from coming about in January of 2011. While promoting how he has picked up the phone to save jobs in Las Vegas or telling us how grateful we should be about the role he is playing in establishing a totally unsustainable alternative energy industry – not much gets reported on how his legislative activities are keeping family-owned businesses from realizing relieve (even partially) from the snap-back of the Death Tax in 2011.

If one didn’t know better, the ultimate purpose of the current regime is the complete devastation of our private enterprise system. This would appear to be the mission the U.S. Senate Majority Leader is carrying out with the legislative maneuvers oriented to keep Death Tax reform off the voting docket in the U.S. Senate. Doing nothing (something that the U.S. Senate has proven to be quite good at under the Senator’s “leadership”) accomplishes the objective of the Death Tax coming back full force in 2011.

As we can see from these various points , provided by the American Family Business Foundation, there is a lot of sound, economic reasoning that forms the basis for a total, permanent repeal of the Death Tax. However, even the partial reform that is offered in the bi-partisan proposal by Senators Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Jon Kyl of Arizona is being thwarted by Senator Reid who has indicated that the legislation being considered for the amendment has gone past the limits of what might be considered for amendments. This is an interesting application of the “rules” by the person who has found ways to accomplish his agenda through such things as the “Louisiana Purchase” and the “Cornhusker Kickback”

While trying to convince Nevada voters about how things would have been so much worse (this with Nevada leading the way in unemployment) if he hadn’t been there inventing the concept of “saved” or “created” jobs – without having to account for the lost employment that the government’s wild spending was causing to crash the economy – we’re not suppose to recognize that the impending tax increases in 2011 aren’t going to make things worse?

Economist Dr. Douglas Holtz Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, estimates that the Death Tax lowers overall employment in America by 1.5 Million jobs…government’s confiscation of capital seems to have a negative effect on business enterprises trying to stay in business and provide jobs.

One study , by economist Steve Entin, highlights the degree to which the Death Tax harms the whole American economy – lowering GDP by $119 Billion and labor income by $79 Billion.

Perhaps the most interesting arguments made to justify the imposition of the Death Tax is the desire to use this government power in order to redistribute wealth earned by others to those who think government has a place in carrying out this objective. Supposedly we’re to believe that the super wealthy will be prevented from maintaining their huge treasures and developing lines of heritage where estates are perpetuated. This would be the folks who are using the system to establish non-taxed protections like foundations and trust that keep what they’ve got while supporting the process of the government taking away any up-and-comers ability to pass the results of their hard work and good fortune to their children and grandchildren.

The bottom line is that the Death Tax is an unjustifiable and inappropriate confiscation of capital. Those who aren’t working to do away with or even partially abate the implementation of the Death Tax are in fact the persons who should be held accountable, by voters in November.

How Do You Justify Taxing Dead People’s Property?

Doug Busselman — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:57:00 GMT

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

We need to clearly understand that the impending increases in the Death Tax in 2011 (unless something is done to change the outcome before January, 2011) will not be an unfortunate accident of the process. If changes are not made the re-institution of the Death Tax (at the rate and to the amounts of anything more than $1 Million in estates) will be something that was deliberately carried out by those currently in control of the legislative process in Washington, D.C.

Although there may be some resolution of the outcome with possible amendments and other legislative arrangements, it is not unreasonable to consider that those who are not supporting or working to make changes are in fact supportive of the Death Tax being re-instituted with as much as a 55 percent rate and on any estate above the $1 Million threshold.

Because of the impact that Death Taxes have on agricultural and other family-sized business enterprises, there has been a struggle to figure out what the arguments might be for there being a Death Tax. I’m well aware of the reasons for doing away with the tax entirely (something which has been attempted and has gotten to the point of 2010 where it is in fact not in operation), but figuring out how anyone could justify the Death Tax caused be to do something rather unusual -- I did a Google search and found this interesting case at Wikipedia for the arguments made to have the Death Tax system we have coming back.

I have to admit that I didn’t find any of the excuses worthy or even reasonable, but in a nutshell we’re supposed to believe that taxing the estates:

Prevents the perpetuation of wealth, tax free, locked up in the possession of wealthy families
It’s really not all that bad since there are credits and other considerations to alleviate some of the burden
If the government doesn’t tax the transfer of wealth – government might not get any of it
It is better to tax the wealth of those who have died than revenue of those working
Wealth inherited makes people less likely to work
We have a history of limiting inheritance
Children don’t have any moral right to wealth earned by their parents

The common denominator in all of these contentions to justify the Death Tax comes down to the principled belief that individuals do not deserve to own their property – at best they can use what’s their’s during their life time, but when that tolerance has been exhausted…Hand it over. From this perspective of the collective desires of society being higher than the rights of an individual to do with their property as they see appropriate – those in charge of the U.S. Senate (one person in particular) we can better understand why the necessary correction for dealing with the Death Tax (even in an minor fashion) has not been carried to completion.

In the mirage of fighting the class war of the wealthy vs the middle-class or desperately needy, it should not be lost that the urbra-wealthy who are supposedly the targets of the Death Tax are insulated from having any problems with the tax burdens, capable of spending the resources necessary to avoid the break-up of their generational wealth distribution. Those in the middle, especially in capital intensive fields are harmed the most and prevented from passing along to their heirs the capacity of what has been built in a life-time or the long-term capability of establishing the solid basis for multi-generational asset accumulation.

The question of whether the Death Tax is appropriate comes down to the core difference of philosophy. If you believe in freedom and the rights of the individual – you are most likely to oppose the concept of Death Taxes being the burden they are headed to becoming again. If you believe that government’s appropriate role is to bestow on the masses whatever can be generated through redistribution schemes of all types – very much the attitude and approach of those in charge of government today – you can hardly wait until January 1, 2011 to get back into the operations of taxing those who have died.

Getting The Level Of Nevada Government We Can Afford

Doug Busselman — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 22:38:00 GMT

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

While we should hold no illusions that the current majority party, in charge of the Nevada Legislature, would very much like to raise taxes in the 2011 Nevada Legislative session and continue with their unbroken streak of growing the size of Nevada’s expenditures – this recent warning from the Tax Foundation will hopefully give some sense of caution. The Fact Sheet, authored by Joseph Henchman, makes a very strong admonition “The state should be careful about its options, as its ability to attract investment and capital depends greatly on its favorable tax climate.”

A lot of the current mindset about what might come up in the 2011 Legislative Session is the not so veiled ideas that the Senate Majority Leader, Senator Steven Horsford, has been considering as being a “fair” approach to establishing a Nevada tax structure that doesn’t yield revenue hardships for state government when the economy isn’t booming. Supposedly, government should never expect to get by with less and all it will take is the right taxing system and this won’t be a problem for legislators to have to contend with.

The Tax Foundation’s report clearly establishes that there is no magic tax formula that doesn’t feel the hit of downturns. It also firmly documents that the specific new taxes Horsford is thought to favor (Corporate Income Tax or Gross Receipts Tax) are not what anyone who cares about the state’s economy would consider.

Somewhat building on the concepts of the Nevada Policy Research Institute’s “One Sound State, Once Again” proposal for a broad-based, low rate sales tax, the Tax Foundation indicated that “a properly structured sales tax applies to all consumer purchases of goods and services, but not to business purchases.”

The report goes on to explain the reason for not including business purchases in their view of a properly structured sales tax -- “The purpose of this exemption is not to promote business in general but rather to avoid the double taxation of some products.”

One of the ideas for how Nevada’s taxing and spending should be operated, came out in comments offered by the Nevada Taxpayers Association President, Carol Vilardo, speaking at a meeting of the Nevada Stakeholders Group. She offered the idea that Nevada’s approach needs to be sustainable.

This is one of the foundational building blocks from the Nevada Spending and Government Efficiency Commission (SAGE), which Vilardo served as a member.

In the first chapter of the SAGE Commission’s book “Bipartisan Directors for Nevada’s Future”, the simple message (highlighted in the Chapter Title) “The Status Quo is Unaffordable”. At the bottom of the same page the observation is very similar – “The status quo in Nevada’s state and local governments is simply unstainable.”

The concept of sustainability is extremely well embraced by those who seem to think it’s a great approach to everything but government. Although the limits of government should be based on something more definite than politically-correct warm and fuzzies…there might be elements that can be extracted from the supposed proper “Sustainable Development” idea which has been defined in the past as being “…development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” This diagram offers the pictorial perspective of the confluence of various considerations for a sustainability that factors in environment, social and economic interests.

Perhaps with adjustments for the title categories of “Social” – “Environment” – “Economic” a model can be considered which plots the appropriate degrees of government and the ability of the private sector to pay for those constrained and limited levels of “service”.

The Solution To Crash Wild Horse & Burro Management On Federally-Managed Lands

Doug Busselman — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 18:59:00 GMT

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

Over the last couple of days we’ve seen an escalation in the media’s attention to the attempts by the Bureau of Land Management to carry out management of Wild Horses. The attention being given to the issue is an orchestrated plan by those who claim to be advocates for Wild Horses to implement their version of the “Cloward-Piven ” Strategy of chaos to force gridlock…crisis to prevent responsible management.

Lost in the turmoil is the need for some type of management. BLM is quick to require livestock owners, using to federally-managed range lands to conform to the standards for rangeland health that have been in place since the Clinton Administration’s “Rangeland Reform ‘94”. In the classic “Do as We Say – Not As We Do” mode, government bureaucrats hold other multiple use interests accountable for range land management that they struggle to accomplish when it's their animals in question. Under federal law, BLM is responsible for managing Wild Horses and Burros.

Advocates who don’t want Wild Horses and Burros managed are attempting to use the “Cows vs Horses” argument with ranchers as the scapegoats for their public relations campaign.

Somehow, in spite of highly-restricted regulations that stipulate the conditions under which livestock grazing can be carried out on federal lands, irresponsible and untrue comments of how horses are being removed to increase cow numbers are fed through media accounts, putting livestock producers in a juxtaposition of being the evil/greedy pillagers and the majestic Wild Horses as the victim’s driven from their homes.

Resource management and any other use of these land areas (wildlife and their habitat being harmed in major ways as a consequence of non-management for Wild Horses) is emotionally dismissed as being manipulated for ill-begotten gain.

Through a constant bombardment of this coordinated scheme of public misinformation and heart-tugging prodding the end of the plank which is being walked comes closer and closer…with the potential grid-lock of doing nothing soon to be realized. Once ground to a halt, fixing the mess will become so impossible and expensive the simple solution will be to just give up.

Mission accomplished for those who don’t want Wild Horses managed and their allies who want livestock grazing forced from the federal lands.

Developing Progress For Ending Death Taxes?

Doug Busselman — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 20:38:00 GMT

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

As the clock continues to tick away the current session of Congress and the advancement of a Senate bill to deal with correcting the 2011 re-institution of the Death Tax (by not doing anything) there has been a significant development in the form of a possible amendment to the fiscal reform package pending attention. The amendment is being offered by Senators Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Jon Kyl of Arizona.

If allowed by the Senate Leadership (that would involve Senator Harry Reid) the amendment could be included in the unfolding debate on H.R. 5297, the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010. If the concept were added to a legislative proposal that makes its way into law – the results would be:

Permanently set the estate tax at 35 percent with a $5 Million exemption amount, phased in over 10 years and indexed for inflation
Provide a “stepped up basis” for inherited assets
Allow the estates of people who died in 2010 to choose to settle their estates under current law (with no estate tax, but with a modified step-up basis) or file under the new law
Offset estate tax relief that is above that provided by the House-passed bill and the Obama Administration’s proposal for a 45 percent estate tax rate with a $3.5 Million exemption

Those deeply interested in the resolution of the matter are working hard to convince their U.S. Senators that such an amendment would be a very good idea. There is also a strong push to reach out to U.S. Senator Harry Reid in hopes that he would go along with adding this amendment to the list of other add-ons being offered for H.R. 5297. One of the groups involved in this effort is the American Farm Bureau Federation, who offered this news release on the importance of getting the Death Tax matter resolved…using this amendment to accomplish the task.

Others have also noticed the developments taking shape and weighed in with their thinking. The Heritage Foundation has put out this information on the subject. It is somewhat interesting to read in the Heritage Foundation’s post, authored by Curtis Dubay, that the delays for Senate action on resolving the Death Tax issue are being attributed to Senate Majority Leader Reid. Some think that Reid actually wants the Death Tax coming back in 2011 – in full force!

Dubay notes, as have others, “that the economy cannot afford for the 55 percent rate and $1 Million exemption at any time, but now, in its badly weakened state, is an especially bad time.”

As we continue to hear about how much our U.S. Senator is doing – it will be worthy to pay close attention to how this detail plays itself out…

We Need Candidates Who Put The Focus On Growing Private Sector Opportunity

Doug Busselman — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 17:55:00 GMT

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

It’s only July and the crap that passes for campaign messaging right now is already old and tired. Our airwaves has been saturated by a U.S. Senator, seeking re-election on the basis that the person who is running against him should be perceived as someone too far out there to warrant consideration. Never mind that the Senator has been in power, successfully implementing policies that have our economy in shambles. He can’t win re-election on successful defense of his record (given the dire consequences that those “accomplishments” have caused)…so the strategy is a scorched-earth approach to destroy the opponent’s reputation – taking the negatives for her down to match his own sorry approval rating.

Meanwhile, has anyone thought about perhaps considering a campaign idea on advancing proactive policies, designed at building our economy? Well -- Yes (since I’ve asked) -- there is something like that out there…although I’ve not seen too many actual candidates embracing the idea.

Here is a ready-made blue print of policy to get things rolling with. In addition to the highlighted post, American Solutions Website has been an outstanding place to visit to get solid information on policies oriented for building our economy through enhanced opportunities for the private sector to be successful. Here is one example of the extremely valuable policy ideas that are offered for those who might be interested in formulating a proactive agenda that really can work to stimulate the economy.

Unlike those in power now believe (that goes for the Nevada Legislature as well as in Washington, D.C.) – you don’t accomplish making people’s lives better with bigger doses of government. Prosperity comes by unburdening the private sector from government’s intrusive, command and control – tax and spend policies.

As the private sector is given the ability to prosper, people who are committed to being self-reliant and accept responsibility for their own destiny are unleashed to participate in making the entire economy bloom.

Instead of the messages on how those in government need to be “thanked” for all that they have been doing (just look around at how well that’s going) – we need to hear from champions of the private sector who say “Vote for me and I’ll work with you and others to get government out of your wallet and off your back.”

Contrary to the belief of the majority party – that we owe government whatever they decide they want to spend…advancing opportunity for the private sector through tax reductions and implementing policies of responsible, sustainable levels of appropriate degrees of government infrastructure will get us to where we need to be.

Congress Needs To Stop The 2011 Tax Increases

Doug Busselman — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 22:51:00 GMT

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

As we edge closer to the November 2010 elections we need to pay special attention to the activities not taking place in the halls of Congress. If the current group of elected representatives were contemplating the massive tax increases that will take place on January 2011 as an overt action – all heck would be breaking and those facing re-election would be backing away from that increase about as quickly as anyone can back away from anything.

However, by not doing the right thing, before January 2011 – they get to have the tax increases they seem intent for us to be forced into paying – without any of the downside of being held accountable for the massive tax increases poised to befall us.

One example is the increase of taxes that will come about with the reinstitution of the Death Tax. The heirs of someone dying in 2010 will not have to pay any Death Tax. Anyone who dies on January 1, 2011 or after will leave his heirs with a tax on all but the first $1 million of the estate and a maximum rate of 55 percent.

Death Taxes can destroy a family business (especially those as capital and asset intensive as production agriculture) and it is not uncommon for surviving family members to be required to sell land, equipment and other assets to pay the taxes required. Planning to avoid the devastation of Uncle Sam’s Grim-Reaper Tax Raids is also problematic, diverting funds that could have been reinvested in the on-going agricultural operations.

There’s something to be said about someone paying taxes on their income throughout their lives, working hard to put together the pieces in order to leave something to the next generation – and then dying and passing along a Death Tax burden – that “something” is a less then kind or positive thought about a government which is willing to accept that approach to funding the excessive and wasteful spending our current group of representatives are doing.

Even if the members of Congress cannot or will not institute a legislative correction to keep the Death Tax from coming back at all in 2011 – passage should be given to a partial solution. Farm Bureau and others involved have been working to bring about an increase in the exemption level, taking it to $5 million (with provisions for the adjustments to deal with inflation) and reducing the maximum rate to 35 percent. The estate tax reform package that needs to be passed by this session of Congress should also include a stepped-up basis, which limits the amount of property value appreciation that is subject to capital gains taxes if the assets are sold.

The planned, automatic re-institution of the Death Tax in 2011 is a mistake that lawmakers in Washington, D.C. need to fix this year. With all the political falderal coming from Washington, D.C. on how jobs and our economy are such priorities – perhaps something actually meaningful would be worthwhile for doing something about something that needs doing.

Not fixing the Death Tax is something that should be looked on November as a tax increase, stimulated by government greed and uncaring representatives who think there is nothing wrong with sending the tax collectors out to pilfer the estates of those who have died…at a rate up to 55 percent of what’s been left behind.

Giving Our Future Agriculture Some Thought

Doug Busselman — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 16:50:00 GMT

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

Sometimes having what you have is the biggest thing to get over in building what you need. It normally isn’t good times which make innovation – it’s about figuring out how to do what needs doing when you don’t have everything you need. That’s where we are right now with the University of Nevada, College of Agriculture, Biotechnology and Natural Resources (CABNR). The $4 Million extraction of resource allocations…the significant reorganization in the form of ending a couple of very important departments…the loss of very critical people and their talents – now have things in a pretty dismal state of affairs.

Putting things back together will require innovation and also a vision that’s not based on what once was, but instead is focused on what needs to be. The temptation of living in the present is to only evaluate current circumstances or attempt to recapture the memories of what once was – in the case of putting CABNR back together, we need to also figure out how to add necessary elements to take Nevada agriculture where it needs to go.

Based on recent meetings with stakeholders and University officials, we expect to be given the opportunity in the near future (likely beginning this fall) for a process to be started which offers participants the ability to be included in figuring out what the future should be. Starting from the basis of needs (research and education) – (present and future), the anticipated planning system will consider where the pathway to the future should be aimed and evaluate what components are available or are needed to advance in that direction.

While we’re waiting for the opportunity to take part in this process, now would be a great time to spend some time thinking (and yes, even dreaming) about what we would like the future to become. Without constraints, where would we like to go and how would that future state of Nevada agriculture be? Imagine the details of the make-up of a profitable and productive production agriculture sector. It will be these considerations which need to be included in the discussions for the future, along with the aspects of how to make a new program of agricultural education and research happen.

When thinking about the future and discussing the possibilities with others, be certain to think big enough and far enough into that future to make the journey worth the effort. Right now, unhook the constraints of present limitations and see what would be ideal. To the extent possible, put your visioning into the mindset of the needs/wants of customers and markets Nevada agriculture could serve. Developing the infrastructure to profitably and effectively deliver those products and services includes the potentials which our Land Grant University should be all about – not only for Nevada agriculture, but for the state as a whole.

Hope you’re looking forward to getting started this fall as much as I am…

Making Government Smaller On Purpose

Doug Busselman — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 19:17:00 GMT

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 Election Process Forces Candidates To Lie?

Doug Busselman — Mon, 05 Jul 2010 17:13:00 GMT

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.

Is Nevada Going To Increase Taxes Without A Vision?

Doug Busselman — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 15:14:00 GMT

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

On May 14th the Nevada Vision Stakeholders group met in Las Vegas for what was supposed to be the last meeting of the process that began in January, working to develop a Vision for Nevada’s future. That meeting didn’t turn out too well. The proposed executive summary draft and some other elements of what might have been the plan didn’t fare well with the general public or the Vision Stakeholders group. Supposedly there was going to be another effort with a more comprehensive offering by the consultants from Moody’s who were hired to assist with the Vision and also with the tax proposal which the Nevada Legislative Interim Finance Committee was going to develop.

May turned into June (no word has been given on plans for further action) – June has turned into July (no word has been given on plans for further action). Members of the Vision Stakeholders group (at least the one writing this piece) haven’t heard anything more than anyone else.

The plan coming out of the May 14th meeting included interaction of some type which would have allowed for further development of weak points. This “outside of public viewing” possibility didn’t seem to pass muster very well with Nevada’s Open Meeting Law requirements, although nothing has come from that plan either.

Many have viewed the purpose for the Nevada Vision project as a way of setting the stage for the anticipated run that the majority party leaders in the Nevada Legislature will make at massive expansion of the tax base and likely increases of existing taxes paid by business enterprises. Given the way the process operated and the inability to follow-through with doing the things which were agreed as being the plan for developing the plan…it is very possible that going forward with a Vision is no longer part of the plan. It may be possible that if the pro-tax zealots couldn’t get the type of outcome they wanted from the Vision – taking a different approach to ram and jam tax increases may be their new tactic.

As the legislative leadership and their ardent supporters for tax and spend attempt to portray Nevada’s problems as primarily a tax system which lacks the capacity to generate necessary revenue, the facts of there not being a magic tax which can provide unlimited inflows is becoming more widely known and discussed. Going into an election where voters might actually question the rationale of expanding Nevada government in light of the extremely weakened state economy, the probable approach will be:

spin the conversation to how serious the state’s budget problems are (we’ve got a crisis!)
actually lie that there is an intent to increase taxes (although they might hope to play the “just want everybody to pay their fair share” card – pointing at those who are imagined to have the resources, but who are holding out) and then
when the election is past go into the 2011 Nevada Legislature and increase taxes and spending like it has been done

Here’s why it is important for voters to reject those who are in charge of things, by virtue of their majority party status and elect enough non-members of the majority party to safeguard the future by preventing a two-thirds mass of either political party. If there is no super-majority in either body of the Nevada Legislature, you get to decide future taxes and spending with a meaningful public discussion (something that hasn’t been the case in the Nevada Assembly for some time and could also be going out the window in the Nevada Senate).

Should the Nevada Vision Stakeholders group finish their unfinished work? That’s hard to say. Given the way in which the process has been carried out it is difficult for even someone who’s been directly involved to have any confidence that it all wasn’t a sham. We’ll just have to wait and find out if there will be word at some point of what might be the next possible idea for going forward (and then whether that idea will be carried out or changed again…)

Research To Find Out What Works – Or What Doesn’t – Not To Get Us To Politically Correct

Doug Busselman — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 12:03:00 GMT

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

The concept of sustainable agriculture, as defined by a special committee from the National Academy of Sciences, portrays an interesting possible future for production agriculture. That working definition for sustainability:

“…not as any particular end state, but rather as progress towards four goals: (1) producing enough to satisfy human needs; (2) enhancing environmental quality and protecting the natural resource base; (3) being profitable; and (4) increasing the quality of life for farmers, farm workers, and society as a whole.”

The report “Toward Sustainable Agricultural System in the 21st Century” starts from the perspective that in spite of the advances made in agricultural output – “Farm output in 2008 was 158 percent higher than it was in 1948, and farmers today are producing more food with less energy per unit output than ever before.” – things just aren’t all that fantastic. Without actually providing scientific evidence to back up their claims…the report says that the gains have come at the expense of the environment, “polluting rivers and waterways.”

I’m not trying to say that various polluting events haven’t occurred or that there aren’t water bodies which are impaired from a variety of pollution sources – I do think however that it is quite common to make sweeping assertions that are taken as factual (especially when made by folks linked to the National Academy of Sciences) that might not be quite as prevalent as the impression given.

Most of the report, from reading the “Report in Brief” summarizes the idea that agricultural research and agricultural policy need to adopt a broader set of objectives than simply more production at lower costs. “Innovative policies and new farming approaches based on a strong scientific foundation are needed to tackle the challenge of increasing production while also meeting environmental, economic and social goals.”

It would seem that research and development programs which incorporate this dogma into their approach could assist in providing benefit for farm and ranch families as long as the strong scientific foundation doesn’t devolve into social change as being the foundation with “science” becoming the justification.

Agricultural research should be concerned with a multi-discipline focus that works to determine the best way to accomplish production with proper attention to protection of natural resources and providing for not only human needs, but also recognizing societal interests. To the extent that making the research information available, even promoting the positive attributes of adopting best management practices which are discovered – this science with an agenda – might yield very good results.

When (and if) the mission evolves to a religious-like, central planning and control model (easily perceived to be interwoven into some of the context of the report) – we will then have problems which go far beyond (and in a much different direction) being too concerned about how productive American agriculture is. From their ivory towers and focused perspective on ways in which individual business enterprises (also known as farms and ranches) could be improved to better serve their Utopian visions it would be good for the sustainable agricultural elitist could come to grips with the concept… “Research To Find Out What Works – Or What Doesn’t – Not To Get Us To Politically Correct”

Growing Entrepreneurs To Grow The Economy

Doug Busselman — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 12:41:00 GMT

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

What do you want to be when you grow up? The answer to that question not only involves a series of planned educational and skill developmental activities – it also matters a great deal to our economy.
Whether we’re looking at local communities, statewide ramifications and on a national basis -- instilling a stronger foundation for private sector success and appreciation would be a worthwhile pursuit.

When the discussions of Nevada business diversification was contemplated with the Nevada Vision Stakeholders Group, wanting to have more entrepreneurs consider setting up shop in the Silver State was determined as being a desirable objective...even though the actual game plan for making it happen wasn’t given much focus. Reading this blog piece by a colleague, who works with the American Farm Bureau Federation and concentrates on rural development activities, we can see that in some parts of the country there is a great deal of specific planning and action oriented to encouraging entrepreneurship. Along with the idea of attracting businesses to locate in their communities they have also given their attention to an emphasis on growing their own crop of future entrepreneurs.

It would be a good idea and a winning strategy for Nevada to carry out as well. Not only would such a development program hold the prospect of actually getting to a place where our state’s economic base was more diverse, it would also establish a stronger cultural understanding that hard work, risk taking, profit motivation and other pro-business attributes are not bad things.

Especially noteworthy in the piece, was the significance of the contributions provided by small businesses – normally equated with individuals who are entrepreneurs:

Small businesses pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll, generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years, created more than half of the nonfarm private gross domestic product (GDP), hire 40 percent of high-tech workers (such as scientists, engineers, and computer programmers), are 52 percent home-based and 2 percent franchises, and produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms.

In heralding the positive aspects and attributes of small business entrepreneurs we need to make certain that we have the understanding that “small” isn’t considered in the context of political correctness -- that place where “small” is perceived as being somehow more morally superior to “big”. The true nature of comprehending the importance of small business, entrepreneurs is the appreciation that people wanting to work for themselves is a foundational value of our private enterprise system. Through direct experience in making a business work…coming to understand the essential requirement of serving a customer’s needs/wants (and being profitable in the process)…there is a much more meaningful perception of what makes our economy operate.

Having more people who are nurtured, trained and become driven to embrace this frame of mind will provide the capability of our economy (local, state and nationally) to be successful. Providing the proper and limited governmental structure will also be a big determinant in whether we have a workable system or what we seem to be getting deeper into, taking the government-centric course that we’re on.

Can Jobs Come From Some Place Other Than Government?

Doug Busselman — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:02:00 GMT

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

The current campaign cycle is causing lots of attention to be given to “who is responsible for American’s having jobs?” In their quest to keep their jobs, at least two of the incumbent Democrats from Nevada, Senator Reid and now Congresswoman Dina Titus, are pitching the idea that unelecting them by selecting their opponents would be bad for job creation in Nevada. First, it seems somewhat an interesting argument to make – Nevada is the number one state in the United States for unemployment and keeping the people in power who have made this possible would be a good thing?

From the spin being placed on their campaign materials, the two Republicans vying for election have been painted as being out of touch because they’ve supposedly taken the position that it isn’t the government’s job to be getting people their jobs. Well, if it is the federal government’s job to find work for people – what does that say about the system the Democratic incumbents are submitting as being the favorable option? Turning to Wikipedia, we get a definition for the system of government where it is the government’s job to put people to work. Is this the government that we want our elected representatives to be pursuing?

While it is highly unlikely that I will be voting for either of the persons who wish to advance the cause that government spending is the solution to our ailing economy (one because I don’t agree and the other because I don’t live in that Congressional District) – I have to wonder how many voters will be buying into the game plan that government is meeting its proper role by creating or “saving” jobs. For those who consider this as an appropriate purpose for government, with appreciation due to those who have spent more money than we (as a country) have to get the results that have been achieved (please re-refer to the point about Nevada as having the highest unemployment rate in the nation) – doing more of the same makes sense to you?

Whether its candidates for local, state or national office – it would seem that given the track record of how good things government-centric approaches have been working – electing whoever believes in the less amount of government (local, state and national) would seem to be the best plan for voters to take.

Revisiting Better Times When Economic Prosperity Was Working

Doug Busselman — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 16:23:00 GMT

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

Over the just concluded weekend I’ve been spending some time with Arthur Laffer’s and Stephen Moore’s book, “Return to Prosperity”. Laffer is widely renown as the economist who provided the Laffer Curve, demonstrating that lowering taxes actually results in increased government revenue and that as you force taxes higher the impact is a reduction in the receipts government acquires.

While I understand that in the class warfare approach of the majority party, ruling in Washington, D.C. and also in charge of the Nevada Legislature, the theme of choice to discredit those who support “supply-side” economics is that “rich” people benefit and “poor” people don’t. That idea and vilification is one of the reasons I’ve been enjoying the book as much as I have. Laffer has the advantage of 25 years of economic boom-times with the detailed numbers that show how well everybody did when growing the economy was the emphasis.

Contrasting those times against our current socialistic wealth redistribution and government-centric approaches and you see clearly that when enhancing the private sector brought about 25 years of prosperity and how the current policies are only prolonging and escalating the downturn into a full-blown depression. While Senator Reid and his fellow champions of government try to convince us that they are buying us better times (using our wallets to accomplish their promise) – the economy continues to falter and fail. Record high unemployment, failing business enterprises and an overall desperate private sector is somehow supposed to represent something we should be grateful for having.

Meanwhile the results produced when supply-side economics were practiced are besmirched and maligned as times of immoral greed. Low unemployment for all, economic advancement for all (especially the lower tiers of the income scale) and federal government surpluses just don’t match up with the outstanding greatness we’re “enjoying” now?

It would be great if American voters would take the time to review the information contained in “Return to Prosperity” and come to understand the concepts of how our system works best when private sector growth is allowed to deliver benefits. If such understanding would be possible the themes of getting elected to represent us would take on a whole new set of messages…we wouldn’t be called on to contact the offices of those who are destroying our economy to “thank” them for all they’ve been doing. We also wouldn’t be told to believe that someone is too wacky for their principles of reduction of government.

For those who aren’t inclined to take my word for the assessment I’m offering – please make the point of picking up a copy of “Return to Prosperity” and we will have something to discuss.

Hard Times And The Way Government “Help” Is Likely To Make Things Worse

Doug Busselman — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 14:22:00 GMT

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

With the serious problems that Nevada’s economy is encountering comes an onslaught of additional information that we all need to consider as we weigh the public policy routes to take in working our way to better times. Nevada’s vaulting into first place as the top state for unemployed workers is not only a sign of the problems our private sector is having in making a living – it is also becoming an even bigger problem by nature of the costs connected with the assistance that unemployment support provides.

Before going any further, raising this issue should not be construed as an anti-support message for those who have lost their jobs and now require assistance. Nearly all of us have friends, neighbors, relatives (and perhaps ourselves) who have needed to deal with the consequences of the weakened economy and the loss of employment because employers have either needed to reduce workforce or have gone out of business. Those in need of temporary help warrant the best effort possible from society to not only get through the unemployment situation, but also to have the ability to get back on their feet with new jobs.

It’s this second point that should be given greater consideration as the more complete picture develops a clearer focus.

Geoffrey Lawrence from the Nevada Policy Research Institute started my thinking on this when he offered this analysis on the way in which giving government aid, actually works to make things worse.

Shortly after reviewing Lawrence’s opinion piece, a friend provided a link to a blog by Samantha Stone who offered an overview which brought to light some very real and very troubling insight into the further burdens that are connected with the state’s long-running unemployment situation.

As members of the majority party continue to posture to set the stage for their run at further burdening Nevada’s business enterprises with a heavier tax load recognition needs to be given to the additional resources which will be taken from those who aren’t exactly in a position to be forced to pay more.

Stone followed up with her piece on this perspective with a follow-up which offered more of the same, providing an even greater understanding on the compounding factors which are further eroding the position Nevada is in.

Meanwhile, in Washington, D.C. where we are told all hope for our economic prosperity resides, conferred on us by a regime that not only creates jobs but has even invented new ways of creating appreciation by “saving” jobs too -- we see that the bloom is fading from the rose. From this national perspective, on the debates taking place in the U.S. Senate on extending further the time frame for paying unemployment benefits, we read this post by Robert Romano who shares some dire analysis of where we stand and how the overall debt situation will be a highly negative factor in turning the economy around and limiting the ability to rebuild things in the future.

Although assistance for those in need should continue to be a matter for attention, the reality of accomplishing this through a model of growing government at the expense of the private sector’s ability to provide needs some rethinking and replacement. In the process, those who wish to further burden whoever might still be standing (wobbling as it might be) with even greater tax loads to support their desire for greater government, should be taken to task with the admonition that their efforts are only making a bad situation worse!

When The Left Doesn’t Get It’s Way

Doug Busselman — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 22:09:00 GMT

By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President

While we might have been pleased with the decision by the Supreme Court of the United States to give the United States Department the ability to move forward with selling bio-engineered, improved alfalfa seed – those who want the world to fit their philosophy of how things should be have not reacted with similar jubilation. Using their champions of greater government control, they are hoping to push through some type of legislative power-play to keep the Department from going forward with implementation, in spite of the environmental finding that was made over there being no impact.

As the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) works to invent and implement a regulatory control system to force energy prices higher – since lawmakers haven’t authorized the action through a bill being passed – there was an effort from some Senators to regain their authority of making laws. It is interesting to watch the hypocrisy from this crowd of U.S. Senators, who voted to not restrict EPA from overstepping their authority, but in this case – when actual science and proper procedures don’t give them the outcome they want – they use their authority to threaten bureaucrats into submission.

I recently heard a radio commercial telling us how we should contact Nevada’s senior Senator to thank him for voting (on the wrong side) with regard to the resolution to keep EPA from implementing its own regulatory version of cap and tax. According to those sponsoring the advertising, the opposition to this over-regulation, intrusion from government bureaucrats were and are “special interests”. Isn’t it also an example of being "special interests" when you seek to force government regulators to ignore their own scientific evaluation and a Supreme Court ruling? Do you have to be politically incorrect (on the wrong side of warm and fuzzy) to qualify for "special interest" treatment?

It seems you have to accept that if you don’t fit in with the elitists, social-engineering crowd who want government to force you to see things their way – you currently aren’t allowed to have a point of view that isn’t “special interests” tainted. If you can’t win the arguments on scientific grounds or you’re your desired outcomes through the process of laws and rules – you play the Congressional card and vilify your opponents to achieve your objectives.