Where I Stand — Brian Greenspun: Disservice to readers

Friday, March 7, 2003 | 5:46 a.m.

DEAR JOHN (as in John L. Smith of the Review Journal): You are not amusing.

While you are not completely wrong, your take on the governor's proposed amusement and transaction tax is just plain goofy. That's the danger inherent in most "men of the people" who profess to speak for the little guy and wind up speaking mostly for themselves.

I am answering your Tuesday column, not because you took a shot at me -- that's expected from you and your colleagues -- but because you chose to write about the single most important issue facing this state, a severe lack of revenue, in a manner designed to turn the very people who will benefit most from Gov. Kenny Guinn's tax package against it.

Shame on you, John. I have always expected more from you. But, instead, you took a road too often traveled by demagogues and others who see benefit from the status quo, those who throw up roadblocks to progress instead of building bridges to better times.

Since you decided to wade into waters that are obviously unfamiliar to you -- had you read the 1,100 page report from the Governor's Task Force on Tax Policy, you would have understood that which was not readily apparent from your column -- and, perhaps, you would have added substance to the debate.

But, dare I say it, by spending too much time trying to pit "wealthy" golfers against ordinary "working stiffs" who like baseball, you have done your readers a disservice by attempting to create some class warfare where no class distinction really exists.

Let me explain. There was considerable discussion amongst committee members about the potential of imposing a tax on the purchase or use of all goods and services. One of the reasons Nevada's tax revenues have gone south is because they are imposed on too narrow of a base, so the idea of broadening that base has some merit.

Where the argument fails is in the regressivity of such a tax -- hitting lower-income people disproportionately harder than those with larger incomes -- and we were specifically charged by the Legislature to avoid such an outcome.

So while we refused to recommend a broad-based sales tax (a tax that could if imposed properly have merit), we encouraged the Legislature to create another panel to study the impact of such a tax over the next couple of years so that everyone would better understand the ramifications at all levels of society.

What we did do, though, was fashion a proposal to create revenue from those activities that are clearly discretionary in nature, those of which the least financially secure among us would rarely partake, and which would have some degree of exportability attached to them (letting the tourists pay as much as possible).

Those include, for example, nightclubs, gentlemen's clubs, NASCAR races, concerts at the Thomas & Mack and other similar venues, prize fights and other events that clearly fall in the higher-ticket, discretionary income bracket.

By the same token, and I will admit it was my idea that others accepted, I did not want to start taxing recreational choices that families made for themselves. It was my belief that we were going to recommend enough new sources of revenue to handle the crisis we were in so that there would be no need to impact families any further. It is easy -- just look west, south, north and east -- to tax anything and everything that moves, but that was not what our committee was charged with doing nor what the people of Nevada expect or deserve. What we expect is to raise what is necessary to keep Nevada as attractive a state as possible in which to live, work and play.

So, how to draw the line between recreational activites -- which include far more than golf and bowling; how about soccer, softball, yoga, weightlifting, dancing, gymnastics and spas, and many other ways in which families choose to spend time together -- and those activities that are less participatory became the difficult task. We decided that if it needed a ticket for admission, i.e. NASCAR races, baseball games, prize fights, concerts and other similar activities, that it would be subject to the tax.

Yes, unfortunately that included movies which, I believe, everyone recognized as a mainstay of family entertainment and an unfortunate member of the wrong group. But that's how it fell.

So, please John, this is not about rich man, poor man with you taking the side of the angels. You like baseball, not golf. You don't bowl or don't care while tens of thousands of Las Vegans do. Each person looks at these taxes based on how much his or her own ox is being gored. That's the truth, so don't try to mask it with your man-of-the-people routine.

The fact of the matter is, John, that if your bosses at that newspaper cared for the people who live here and subscribe, they would be out front in favor of the gross receipts tax and other revenue enhancements that the governor is asking for instead of giving space to those people who are happy with the terrible way things are and who will throw up any argument that confuses the people and the issues.

Yes I play golf. And, yes I can afford to pay a tax on that activity. I am also in the very fortunate position of being subject to every recommended tax we made to the governor, except the one on cigarettes.

But most people are not in my position. They can't afford to pay all that the Chamber of Commerce and your newspaper would have them pay to avoid a tax on businesses.

By the way, John, I didn't see you at any of our meetings nor did I hear you comment about baseball or bowling when it might have done some good. I guess it is always easier to sit back and second-guess decent and honorable people trying to do what they think is right, huh?

Nevadans needed people on that Task Force who thought about them before they thought of themselves. And that is exactly what the people of this state got. Thankfully.

There, I have said my piece. If you have any more questions, John, we can discuss them over a game of golf or at the ballgame. You pay.