Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Sunday, April 25, 2010 | 2 a.m.
Sun Coverage
As Nevada tries to climb its way back from the economic abyss, the state’s legendary libertarian streak is running smack into another defining, but often unacknowledged, regional characteristic: Nevada’s addiction to federal largesse.
This political contradiction started showing itself during last year’s debate over the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, otherwise known as the stimulus, as Republicans opposed the federal rescue plan but complained their state did not get enough money.
At the time, it prompted Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley to compare stimulus critics to disgruntled diners who emerge from a restaurant saying: The food was lousy and the portions were too small.
But the same intellectual conundrum has resurfaced on the campaign trail, especially in the U.S. Senate race, as Republican candidates routinely criticize Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for what they see as excessive spending coming from Washington, and then ask for more.
Guy Rocha, a Nevada historian, said this tension has long been etched in the Nevada psyche, a mismatch between the state’s libertarian leanings and its dependence on federal dollars.
A romp through modern history tells the story of the state’s unabashed addiction to Washington money.
After the mining bust at the turn of the 20th century, the state sought federal intervention to begin diverting river waters to create the agricultural-boom communities that have sustained generations of farmers and ranchers in Northern Nevada to this day.
Then-Rep. Francis Newlands was instrumental in securing federal funding for the 1902 Truckee-Carson reclamation project, one of the first in the West. From there, federal investments often substituted for state taxes as a way to finance growth.
“That started our addiction,” Rocha said.
Republican Sen. Tasker Oddie continued federal spending on road projects until Democrat Pat McCarran knocked him out of office in 1932, becoming one of the state’s most prolific pork barrelers.
McCarran put federal money into building up the state’s aviation capacity — hence the airport bearing his name in Las Vegas. Another Democrat, Sen. Howard Cannon, followed suit, getting his own airport named after him in Northern Nevada, until it was renamed the Reno-Tahoe airport.
The Hoover Dam and Nevada Test Site, which employed thousands, were nothing if not federal jobs projects.
Funding flowing to Nevada has diverted rivers, built highways and enabled tourists to fly in from around the world to gamble.
While other states may embrace this federal involvement, in Nevada it fostered the state’s pioneering libertarian leanings.
Republicans argue the federal money coming to Nevada is nothing more than Nevada money that was sent to Washington in the first place.
All they want is their fair share returned — especially now, as the state is hurting. If Washington is going to tax Nevadans, just be sure Nevadans get their cut in return, they argue. Their preference would be lower taxes in the first place.
The pull of the federal government is strong again, as state leaders see Nevada trailing the nation in emerging from the recession. What can the federal government do to help?
Republican candidates running against Reid routinely ask why he isn’t bringing more pork home for the state. Reid, in fact, brings in more money to Nevada than every other Nevada lawmaker combined.
“Expectations among Nevadans continue to grow,” Rocha said.
“There’s a lot of bluster, a lot of rhetoric. But when it comes to the reality of how we run our state, this state couldn’t have developed as it did without federal dollars,” he said. “We like the handout. We don’t like the regulations that come with it.”
Transcontinental railroad (Federal government law created) helped too.
Bunch of hypocrites, TBAGs are big government addicts, Social Security, VA, Medicare, second home deduction for their RV's, etc.
Rush Limbaugh's cochlear implant was developed at NASA and University of Melbourne (tax supported government institutions.)
The Sun is delusional. It's consistent with being libertarian to demand our money back from Washington. Nevada is always gets back less than we give despite Reid's so-called pull. Very funny that the Sun forgot from where the money in Washington came or did they just misspell "liberal"?
Caps aren't permitted on a Pro-Libertarian newspaper's forum.
Give me more free money.
With FREEDOM & LIBERTY as their "addiction", ALL American Patriots' are Libertarians -- some just need to be reminded.
: {
Libertianism is a dead frontier philosophy. We no longer have more resources than people anywhere in the world. Ron Paul and Ayn Rand are dreaming about some preindustrial entrepreneurial,atavistic society in which only the "truly productive people" are rewarded. Since only the elites should be rewarded ,in their view, the rest of us are suppose to beg them for our very existence. Would the signers of the United States Contitution want this ?
Hypocrites through and through. Betcha they won't give up their Medicare or SocialSecurity unless we pry it out of their dead hands. Just like the Hypocritical GOPers: Not one said they wouldn't raise taxes AND WOULD RESIGN IF THEY DID!. Not one has ever said how they are going to "cut 2-3 billion" from the budget [okay, maybe a few cents, but not the 35-50% necessary to mean that goal. They dont't want their "hands tied". Nonsense, just tell us only about the first 500 million. what are they cutting? [Of course, then they would admit they are saying cut out 1/2 of the schools or 1/2 of the police. ] But let them show the way... all GOPers/Libertarians should begin homeschooling right now. That'll save a bundle. All talk. and b@@@@s@@@ at that. C'mon. Pledge to QUIT if you raise any tax/fee/ cost to Nevadans. C'mon pledge it. I bet Muth will back you then. [BTW, make it retroactive and we can get rid of Gibbons too...]
Watch 'em in Yazoo City begging Obama for bazillions after the tornado there... "Hypocrite" is hardly and accurate descriptor for ALL political parties.
It is ethical and appropriate to vote against receiving money and then to accept those funds if the majority votes for them. It would make no political nor business sense to reject the funding, thus further rewarding the people who voted for more government spending, as they would receive the money you rejected.