Friday, June 27, 2003 | 9:36 a.m.
News coverage of the second special session of the Legislature has centered on the progress made by state lawmakers as they seek to raise taxes in order to balance the state budget. But an important subplot, which has ramifications for the future of the Republican Party in Nevada, came into full view on the special session's opening day on Wednesday as Republicans lashed out among themselves over tax policy. Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio, R-Reno, said the strident anti-tax rhetoric of some Republicans is dividing and damaging the party. "I'm old enough to remember when the John Birch Society took over the party and destroyed the party. Some of this reminds me of that," Raggio said. "They did serious damage to the party for decades."
Assemblyman Bob Beers, R-Las Vegas, one of the leading opponents of a tax increase, told Sun reporter Launce Rake that Raggio was wrong to believe that this opposition was hurting the Republican Party. "I am proud that the Republican Party has such a broad umbrella ... that there is room for both Sen. Raggio and myself," Beers said. But Beers is being disingenuous as he tries to paper over the diametrical views he and Raggio hold. Beers, after all, demonstrated his shrill political philosophy by referring to the tax increases advocated by Guinn as the biggest private-to-public redistribution of money "since the Bolshevik Revolution."
No one could build a tent large enough to hold views that are so different when it comes to government's role in society. Raggio and Guinn are fiscal conservatives, but they and a significant number of other Republicans understand that government is supposed to provide basic services, including funding for public education. As the year has unfolded it's clear that Beers' philosophy is out of touch with the needs of the fastest-growing state in the nation.
Even if a compromise is reached on the budget and taxes before the fiscal year ends Monday, the divide among Republicans won't go away. Democrats have had their own rifts over the years, too, but they're pretty much in agreement that a modest increase in taxes is necessary to pay for essential government services that the public rightly demands. The Republican Party in Nevada is going to have to decide what it stands for. Is it for progress, which results in better education and a better future for this state? Or does it want to be a pawn of large businesses, especially out-of-state corporations, that don't want to pay their fair share of taxes? For the good of Nevada, we hope that the progressive vision held by Guinn prevails among Republicans.
archive
