A redundant debate on taxing

Wednesday, Sept. 23, 2009 | 2:01 a.m.

Which is worse — a tax pledge or a tax study?

Easy, too many conservatives will cry — it’s the tax study because it’s a prelude to a massive increase, simply designed to give political cover for a preordained goal.

Easy, too many liberals will shout — it’s a tax pledge because that ensures more deep cuts in programs from education to health care to social services.

In this case, both sides are wrong. The answer: They are equally noxious and yet they threaten to define the state budgetary debate during Campaign 2010 and the run-up to Session ’11.

The tax pledge is an exercise in pandering and superficiality, while the tax study is an endeavor of redundancy and ethereality. One is about too little talk; the other about too much talk.

They are the extremes in the seminal debate confronting the state before the next legislative session — not the special one The Man Formerly Known as Governor is dreaming of so he can feast on the Gang of 63 shortly before Thanksgiving, but the one come 2011 when Nevada will confront a budget hole conservatively estimated at $2 billion. (That’s because of disappearing stimulus money, sunsetting taxes and a weakening economy.)

We see this discussion occurring so long before the next session because of the developing four-way (!) competitive GOP primary and the coincident ramping up of the latest tax study. And so we have GOP contenders appealing to the LCR (Lowest Common Republican) on the tax issue, with one, Joe Heck, reversing himself on the tax pledge in recent days, and Democrats playing the “we are not using this tax study as cover to plan an increase” game by using obnoxious words such as “vision” and “stakeholder.”

The Grover Norquist-Chuck Muth tax pledge Heck recently signed reads, “I pledge to the taxpayers of the state that I will oppose and veto any and all efforts to increase taxes.”

This ludicrous litmus test, which Heck previously disdained, assumes that circumstances never change, that taxes are never needed, that government is always destructive. It’s candy for the GOP babies who wail and wail until a candidate, such as Heck, capitulates. Gibbons signed the pledge, and then giving it Ø respect, put a $300 million room tax increase in his budget. Brian Sandoval and Mike Montandon, while adopting absolutist tax rhetoric, have not signed.

It is painful to watch these gubernatorial hopefuls genuflect to the non-thinkers, who they must assume are the majority of the GOP electorate. How refreshing it would be to hear one Republican say: “Of course no one wants to raise taxes. But I will prove through my campaign that I am the most thoughtful and fair-minded conservative in the contest, so you can trust I will only raise taxes as a last resort.”

Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, the Democrats already have decided that taxes must be raised to help close that $2 billion deficit but are afraid to say so and are banking on the latest tax study to pave the way.

Oh, but this one is different, we are told. This one will really explore what kind of state we want to be and will create a “Vision Stakeholder Group” to help create proposals that are fair and equitable and will shape our future and make us all live happily ever after. I think I have that right.

There are no mysteries here, which is why this is such a sham. The state has had five tax studies and I have lost count of all the visions and stakeholders I have heard about in the past few decades. What I would like to see is someone hold a stake and drive it into this latest tax study before anyone wastes time coming to the same conclusion: Nevada has a narrow tax base that should be expanded to include more taxpayers.

How refreshing it would be to hear a Democrat say: “Maybe we should save the state a few hundred thousand dollars and acknowledge that every other tax study has reached the same conclusion. So let’s admit this comes down to a philosophical question about what government should and should not do, and let’s debate that.”

Sorry, I left the planet again momentarily.

Both sides want to surrender to what they see as political realities — the Republicans think they have to chant the no-tax mantra to get elected and the Democrats believe they have to hide their true wishes to get elected. They have raised this white flag in the most cynical way imaginable, thus sacrificing long-term credibility for short-term gain.

A tax pledge or a tax study? Pick your poison.

Discussion: 9 comments so far…

By lcdrmandingonamvet

9/23/09 at 5:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

America's wealthy don't pay taxes, and they definitiely won't fight to defend America. If my memory serves me right, Joe Kennedy, Jr. (Ted's oldest brother) and Pat Tillman (former NFL star), they are the only American millionaires to die in combat, since WII. We have families like the Coors, they have been in this country for 150 years, and none of their MALES, have ever served in military uniform. Ooopsy! Our rich patriots, they do hold great GOP fundraisers, so the Republicans can start senseless and illegal wars.

30 years agao, I attended San Diego Clippers games. This NBA team was worst than lousy in those days. Often times during their games, I would count the number of folks sitting in the stands. Donald Sterling still owns this team, which has hemmoraged MONEY (losing) for 3 decades. Sterling intentionally loses money with the Clippers, so he can write-off income taxes for his other businesses that he owns. Our trailer residents aren't afforded this biased tax write-off.
By geezelouise

9/23/09 at 7:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

I agree. We don't need another tax study. We need legislators to grow a pair and do the right thing for our state.
By Harley

9/23/09 at 9:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

What's to study about taxes?

Taxation is unpunished theft.

Any system funded by theft through taxation deserves to fail

"We cannot solve today's problems with the same level of thinking that created them." -A Einstein
By DouglasDemocrat

9/23/09 at 9:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

And yet Chuck Muth supports Jim Gibbons more than he does Brian Sandoval.

Apparently in his world it's worse to not sign the no-tax pledge at all then to sign it and then break it (as Gibbons did when he said that if the voters supported new taxes, he would not veto them).

And Harley, could you learn a new song? This one is well worn out. Perhaps you have a plan on how to run the basic services of the state (such as prisons and road repair) without taxes? Should the Department of Corrections hold a bake sale when they need money?
By NLV-Indep13

9/23/09 at 10:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

Excellent column! I'd like to see some in depth analysis by the 2010 candidates before Christmas on where the money's coming from now, where it's going and what it's accomplishing, and then what they'd change if they could (their priorities). Call it the "2011 Challenge". Right now they all seem to be a pretty unimpressive group of professional politicians, unable to think beyond bumper stickers and photo ops. We the People deserve better.
By OpenRange

9/23/09 at 1:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

There actually should be a big difference with this new tax study in that it needs to address a changing Nevada economy. A tax structure needs to be built around the current economy and the goals of economic diversification. The previous studies touched on diversification, but could not possibly foresee current economic dynamics.

It's actually a great opportunity to chart a new course away from the service and retail industries (most sought after by local goverments due to current tax structure), and then tailor a revised tax structure around a more diverse economy.

In order to grease the wheels of a tax structure overhaul, it is imperative that the biggest obstacle, distrust of government spending, be addressed through transparent expenditure reporting by all entites that receive taxpayer funds.
By Patrick_R_Gibbons

9/23/09 at 3 p.m.

Suggest removal

Jon it's a fallacy to assume that being moderate is being correct.

Additionally, with $8 to $9 billion in spending from the state government, one might reasonably assume that we could figure out ways to be more efficient with state operations. So "no to new taxes" isn't that strange or bizarre of an idea if you are going to look for ways to do the same thing better through innovation. Of course, that means you have to find a politician who is willing to really think about things.
By jlb101

9/24/09 at 7:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Close the welfare offices. Fire the social workers. Provide every social parasite in Nevada a free bus ticket to California and a $200 bonus provided they never set foot in Nevada again. There are thousands of social workers in California waiting to give them all kinds of free stuff paid for by the taxpayer fools in that cesspool excuse for a state.
By Planetearthcalling

9/25/09 at 2:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Could Las Vegas end up like Detroit.

Single party rule by narrow minded agenda driven democrats of the liberal persuasion brought about the collapse of a major American city. That and a one trick economy like here in Las Vegas will do it every time.

To this day, the well worn liberal cry of higher taxes will solve all our problems can still be heard by the people of Detroit, none of whom are taxpayers by the way, but are instead consumers of taxpayer funded services.