6 Comments
Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumblePublished Wednesday, Dec. 3, 2008 | 2:59 p.m.
Updated Wednesday, Dec. 3, 2008 | 3 p.m.
After hammering his rich friends who have feathered comfy nests in gilded cages on the back of "the guy on the streets," University System Chancellor Jim Rogers left our set bemoaning the fact he can't seize enough platforms to educate the masses about the catastrophic consequences of ignoring Nevada's failed tax system any longer. I almost wanted to remind the guy he owns a handful of television stations.
Like other journalists I was skeptical when Media Mogul Rogers decided to become Chancellor Rogers. Would he preach from the bully pulpit of Channel 3 and its sister stations? Admittedly, as a loyal Channel 8 news viewer, my perception of Channel 3 news comes more from the promos I see during prime time than from actual newscasts. With the exception of a few Channel 3 specials on the plight of education (that looked tailor-made for the boss) Rogers seems more inclined to spread the gospel from the set of Face to Face than from his own programs.
Tonight you'll hear Rogers tell that guy on the streets he's been sold a bill of goods (that taxes are bad) by multimillionaires unconcerned with the community good but consumed with enhancing their own bottom lines. Chancellor, feel free to preach from our pulpit anytime.
When you have a 28% increase in spending in one year.
And that year happens to coincide with a tax increase.
And that tax increase coincides with a growing national economic bubble.
And then when the bubble pops and spending decreases the exact same amount, I find it difficult...if not down right unintelligent...to make a claim the revenue structure is at fault.
Problem is, the facts are staring you people in the face - Rogers and Greenspun have you folk snookered.
Hey Jon,
Tell Jim we have an "I didn't pay enough fund" and to donate his hard earned money to the government. Maybe he can dump all his private company profits into education just to show how much he cares and how little he cares about his bottom line.
You know - lead by example.
Or how about this TOUGH question, "how does spending more on education improve education when research suggests it not only does nothing to improve student achievement but it may actually decrease economic growth?"
Or I got a gem""how can we raise funding on higher education when you just blew $100 million on a really ugly building." Does college need $100 million buildings? Can't the kids make do with a $20 million building?
I hope I'm not watching softball tonight Jon!
KDR81,
Jon Ralston didn't write this, Dana Gentry did.
"feel free to preach from our pulpit anytime"
Yep....sounds about right....Face-To-Face is a lame program.
Jim Rogers is making the right general statements on the need for change to tax policy in Nevada. The cornerstone of any community's value as a quality place to live and raise a family is good local banks, good schools, good parks and roads, access to quality healthcare, and a university that is growing and supported by the community. I would throw in a strong church and social community too. Most Las Vegas residents today came to live in Las Vegas from abroad, including a good number of retired people. They want all the benefits of Las Vegas life, including anticipated big home equity appreciation, without tax increases. They want low cost healthcare, and create high demand in an isolated area that doesn't offer great depth in healthcare specialties. They want to know their grandchild's teacher, but that teacher is a full time substitute working without health or long term benefits from the ISD. In sum, they want everything on the "same", but expect quality, even though DMV processed 35,000 new vehicles in 30 days. Las Vegas is never going to be like any other city in the country, and it shouldn't aspire to be. That's the beauty and uniqueness of "Vegas" and the isolated desert mecca. It's a fantastic place. But, the Las Vegas of today, vs. the Las Vegas of 30 years ago, is significantly underfunded in some very important areas that should be important to all citizens. The argument today is not about overspending on quality of life issues, it's about a fair and equitable participation by everyone, top down, to "catch up" in taxation and spending when the Nevada economy recovers, which means putting people in office over the next two years who can competently lead and bring the equilibrium, without overdoing it. A more proper balance in both public and private sector spending should also help improve checks and balances for things like corruption and improper influence. The other option, highly undesirable, is looking to Detroit as your model for the future, another corporate, one industry town that years ago fell too far behind and may never catch back up to what it could have, and should have, become today.
Detroit was run by a bunch of corporatists who sought government protection from competition.
Michigan was a high tax high regulatory state that crushed the diversification of its economy.
You are reading a newspaper run by a corporatist asking for taxes to crush our state's ability to diversify and expand the economy.
Ironic.