Print
E-mail
Share
delicious
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitter
Related files
Chancellor Jim Rogers says the governor won't return his phone calls. Now, Jim Gibbons has returned Rogers' frequent correspondence on the budget by essentially telling the chancellor they see things differently. He wants to, shockingly, cut spending and not raise taxes. Read the letter from the governor to the chancellor at right.
Okay, so I guess it's my day to bash Gibbons again. His letter simply confirms (again) that he is satisfied with allowing Nevada's education system, both higher and "lower," to continue to be mired in mediocrity. That he would not want Nevada's universities to pay salaries that would draw and retain the very best professors and staff, by limiting what they could be paid, shows directly where his "aim" for our education system is sighted: All the way at the bottom. Nice work, Jim! Easy position for someone with independent wealth (and not to mention, great tax breaks on "grazing" land!) to advocate.....
So I guess you are saying the Democrats running for state assembly and state senate desire to raise taxes.
Is that correct?
My wife has 35 children in her incoming class of full-day Kindergartners. 35. With no classroom aide. I'd love to see our esteemed Education Governor replace her for a single day. Perhaps he could explain his economic policies to them. Perhaps they'll understand his vision for Nevada's future.
So, are the Nevada Democrats in favor of raising taxes?
The worst schools in the country will just get worse and no one seems to be talking about how we can fix the state's revenue stream.
So, the Democrats running for state seats are in favor of raising taxes?
jfnance32,
Are you in favor of destroying state government? Nevada has the second lowest tax burden in the nation, second only to Alaska. Factor out oil revenues in Alaska, and we probably have the lowest tax burden in the country. But we pay too much in taxes, right?
Democrats are in favor of having a world-class education system in this state. Democrats are in favor of having good infrastructure. If a less volatile tax structure would help to accomplish that, good.
"If a less volatile tax structure would help to accomplish that, good."
Does this mean raising taxes?
jfnance is just an antagonist. taxes? taxes? taxes? DOES THAT MEAN TAXES????
Here's a quote from jfnance from yesterday:
"It gets old going back and forth and repeating the same thing over and over again."
Apparently, Nance has changed his mind about that.
I am trying to understand Democratspeak.
Are the Democrats running for Nevada Assembly and Senate wanting to raise taxes?
Is that hard to answer?
I guess it is.
Oppps....there goes a Democrat crawling under a rock....Lets go ask them.
The debate over taxes is less important to me than the debate over adequately funding state services--public education, transportation, health and safety. Let me use one (repeatedly) failed candidate up north for an example. One-issue candidate Sharron "NO!" Angle always claimed to be "the education candidate," yet everything she stood for showed her utter contempt for state services. __I am the education candidate, but the first thing I'd do is cut K-12's primary source of funding, property taxes. But I'm so totally for education.__
Having a well educated populace costs money. Having roads that aren't ridden with potholes costs money. Having bridges that don't fall down for lack of maintenance (think Minneapolis) costs money. Having public safety/health institutions that are capable of snuffing out wildfires, keeping crime low, and providing adequate health care costs money. That means taxes.
Unfortunately, in this state, virtually every method of diversifying our tax revenue is constitutionally prohibited (income tax, state lottery). The solution to our state's problems isn't as simple as cutting off funding with a chainsaw, or raising taxes so we can spend like drunken sailors. It will take a reasoned approach that will require smart funding cuts and targeted tax increases (or perhaps even some tax decreases). Nobody wants to raise taxes, but to have good state institutions which provide a measure of service requires money, and that means taxes.
jfnance's solution: just do away with state government. It's not like I need it anyway.
I pose a question to you, nance: what are you for (other than no taxes)?
I think we should have a tax structure that fully funds the budget that Jim Gibbons submitted to the legislature for approval in 2007.
How hard is that to understand?
I haven't seen a Democrat who is running for the Assembly or Senate run on a platform of higher taxes. If you can name a few, that would be helpful.
Otherwise, what is your point, and doesn't it get old going back and forth and repeating the same thing over and over again? Or was that just yesterday?
Wow...I am now glad that you are saying that the Democrats want to raise taxes.
Boy...that was a hard one to retrieve.
Only now, we get them Democrats who are running to come out beneath the rocks and say it, too.
What are they afraid of? Do they have any principles? Are they trying to trick the voters?
I know a lot of businesses also want their projected 2007 budgets restored.
I guess they could pay more taxes. They can just layoff some employees to do it. We do not need people working and earning a living. Government needs its money.
To just say "government needs it's money," is a gross over simplification. People need good roads, good schools and a safety net for children, just to name a few functions of government. Those things cost money, even in a bad economy. Unfortunately, our state legislators have spent the past 20 years underfunding compared to growth, stretching services to a breaking point, then with the economic downturn, there is no fat to cut. Increasing state revenue has to happen and that means Nevadans are going to have to pony up if they want any improvement in schools or roads.
How come the Democrats that are running do not mention one word of the desire to increase taxes?
Are they hiding under rocks?
Are they trying to trick the voters?
You would think it would be this simple.
The goverment needs more money.
We are planning to increase taxes to get that money.
Nance: "The government needs more money."
Where are we gonna get it, champ?
That would be the position of a Democrat running for office.
The state budget has grown faster than inflation and growth for years.
I do not think it needs more money.
I do not think we should harm businesses that are struggling. Those businesses put food in our bellies and roofs over our head.
I can survive a government that has been bloated with money for years and now has to tighten its belt.
I can't survive losing my job.
Wait, if you don't think it needs more money, then why did you say it needed more money?
Nance: "We are planning to increase taxes to get that money."
Wait, you're planning on increasing taxes to get that money?
Wow... I am now glad that you are saying that the Republicans want to raise taxes.
Boy... that was a hard one to retrieve.
Only now, we get them Republicans who are running to come out beneath the rocks and say it, too.
What are they afraid of? Do they have any principles? Are they trying to trick the voters?
Very funny....your posting just shows that the Democrats are very weak.
They want more money for the govenment but they crawl under the rocks before they would ever ever say these words: "Raise taxes".
Wait...I see a Democrat under a rock...what did you say...I can't hear you. You were mumbling something about "restructuring taxes" ......what did you say....Oh...you are very afraid of the voters....you think they are bitter and cling to guns, religions and are against new taxes because those bitter folk do not know how to deal with their problems.
The Luv Guv's reasoning of why he continues to believe we have a spending problem and not a cash problem is disturbing, but not surprising. His feigning support of K-16 education is just a ploy used to attract soccer moms to vote for him. (And probably is a good pick up line for him as well.) The Luv Guv continues to believe that Nevada should be at the bottom in everything regardless of how it hurts the State and its citizens. The only list he wants us to stay on the bottom of is taxes.
Taxes should not be considered a four letter word. Taxes are the membership dues we pay to live in a civilized society. Taxes are an investment in our future and are spent to the benefit of all who pay them. I'm sure their is "waste" to be cut (just like there is in private business). (I would start with the Luv Guv's bloated salary.) I believe that constantly looking at and finding ways to improve efficiency is essential to an effective government. However, eliminating all of the "waste" won't solve the fundamental problems of inadequate education, infrastructure, and health care services.
The Legislature should take a stand and fix this problem in the upcoming session. They need to educate the public on the goals of providing adequate services and showing how those goals can be met. If the means to those goals leads to raising a tax, a fee, or whatever else you want to call it, so be it. Nevadans deserve better.
Just to let everyone know, Nance works for the Gov. I finally was able figure that out after months of reading his comments. How else could he justify such constant stupidity in the light of so much evidence against his theories.
By the way Nance - how could you lose your job? It doesn't seem like you have one because you are on here commenting every five minutes. Oh, is this your "job" for the Gov? Sorry then, if that is the case keep typing away, I don't want to lose you as a taxpayer. Oops, I forgot, our state still operates like a nineteenth century cowtown - no income taxes. You should start posting your comments on the RJ website with other like-minded right-wing extremists.
Republicans caused this economic problem while Iraq brings in record amounts of profits from oil. So a republican governor thinks that because there is an economic turndown and 6.6% unemployments that we should cut services to the elderly and to children to the max.
Yep, make 'em bleed luv gov.
You should be ashmaed of your egotistical, ignorant self.
Nance is obviously a happy member of the Beers/Angle/Gibbons camp, and that's fine. I respect that there are those that feel government should be minimalized, and the barest of few dollars spent on anything so crazy and liberal as education, whether K-12 or Higher Ed, mental health services, etc.. No doubt his/her charity knows no bounds, and he/she "gives till it hurts" to all those private organizations that those who think like Bush will step forward and take care of all those who cannot do for themselves.
I get that our state budget has grown a great amount over the past years...so has our population and the demands that growth has placed on the budget. If those like nance are satisfied with living in a state with a ranking first in everything bad and last in everything good, then he/she must be happier than a pig in mud right about now.
The economic problems of Nevada weren't created by Jim Gibbons (much as I'd love to blame the dope), but his lack of leadership hasn't done a thing to suggest any way out of it, either. When the next 19% of cuts come, and they are, prisons will be closed, education at every level will be hurt further, agencies that are running on shoestrings and low staffs will do even more with even less, and all will be apparently absolutely blissful for the Angleites and nance.....
Education has nothing to do with MONEY...Having teachers out protesting that they don't make enough means that they are not teaching our students because they do not get paid enough...That is wrong...The PARENTS ARE AT FAULT...Places like Utah and Idaho spend less per student than we do but they have top scores...The only difference is the culture... Here the education is not place on education by parents because less face it they themselves might make 75k a year AS A VALET!!! If we want students to learn then the parents have to hold their feet to the fire and stress education above everything else...NO MORE ABSENTEE PARENTS...THROWING MONEY AT THE PROBLEM WILL NOT FIX IT!!!!
No one in their right mind would ever argue that parents are not a, if not the, key component to a successful education for a child. But the fact that casinos might pay unskilled or low skilled workers at levels that seem out of line for the job being done is hardly an excuse cut education funding even more...and keep in mind Gibbons has told agency heads to prepare additional cuts of 14% for the next biennium budget. Nevada's "culture" won't magically convert to that of Utah or Idaho, and certainly not if we can't attract and retain good teachers. And I'd like to know the source of the information that to my understanding would rank those two states 49th and 50th or near that, since last I heard Nevada ranked somewhere in the neigborhood of 48th.