Las Vegas Sun

January 29, 2015

Currently: 59° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

jon ralston:

‘No new taxes’ has no new meaning

It’s only the second week of Session ’11 and the tax non-debate has set a high bar of inanity to hurdle.

Amid the Democratic mutes and administration deniers, we have the silliness of two rookie GOP senators, one (Michael Roberson) revealing repressed childhood memories of miners raping his birthplace and another (Elizabeth Halseth) whining of being ignored by the industry, leading to the easily escapable conclusion by the Fourth Estate that miners will finally pay their due.

But this is all a sideshow, albeit a familiar one, as the Gang of 63 and the governor avoid any substantive “open and honest debate” over the budget crisis by hewing to familiar positions (Brian Sandoval playing Jim Gibbons) or articulating problems without offering any solutions (Democratic legislative leaders playing most Democratic legislative leaders across the years).

It’s the politics, stupid, not the policy, and if you don’t know who they are calling stupid, folks, look in the mirror.

I am bemused, however, about how the tempest over a bill to curb mining’s eminent domain powers, leading inevitably to a “tax the industry” discussion, has illuminated the intellectual dishonesty of the “no new taxes” crowd.

Roberson signed the Americans for Tax Reform pledge, which Citizen Outreach boss Chuck Muth pummels candidates for not embracing during campaigns. The pledge couldn’t be more simplistic, to “oppose and vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes.”

Of course no one who has given any thought to policy or the real world would ever sign such a childish document. ATR’s Grover Norquist, Muth and others talk about this sacred pledge as a useful tool, and it is — a bludgeon to pound into submission anyone with a heterodoxical thought.

But the reductio ad absurdum is that if you can distill all fiscal policy into three words — no new taxes — you are a conservative. Indeed, Muth crowned Halseth his “conservative of the year” for 2010.

Halseth and Roberson were noteworthy during the campaign for their willingness to say “no new taxes” and their inability to name one cut they would support. Ah, what great conservatives.

Once the discussion turned to taxing mining, Roberson eagerly told the Review-Journal’s Ben Spillman: “I pledged to my constituents that I would not raise taxes and I’m not going to do that. You can raise taxes in one area and offset them by lowering taxes in another area.”

And Muth immediately patted Roberson on the back, saying that would not violate the simpleton’s — excuse me, simplistic — pledge because the anti-tax group says: “While ATR opposes any tax increase as a matter of principle, the Pledge does not require opposition to revenue neutral reform.”

My goodness. So the principle articulated here is that a lawmaker can pledge to never, ever raise taxes — because theoretically they cannot be salutary — but one can find a loophole and vote for an increase, so long as he or she cut taxes elsewhere, regardless of the harm the tax increase might do. This is an age-old principle: It’s called sophistry. Or, if you like, hypocrisy.

To his credit, Sandoval did not sign the pledge, and thoughtful lawmakers such as ex-Sen. Bill Raggio long argued against such litmus tests. But look what happens to reasonable men such as veteran state Sen. Dean Rhoads and freshman Assemblyman Ira Hansen when they say nothing should be off the table. They are pilloried by Muth & Co. and brainwashed by the governor so their minds are right (at least publicly).

Should advocates of tax increases have to justify why they are necessary and provide evidence they will not be destructive to the economy? Of course. But even the conservative think tank NPRI supports a new tax, forcing some businesses to collect a tax on services while lowering the overall rate.

Most infuriating by many Republicans is the reflexive abnegation of any thought and blind adherence to three words, rhetorical candy for those who fear pouring castor oil down the electorate’s gullet. And, as a recent retailers poll (lambasted this week by Muth as a ploy to get others taxed) and other surveys have shown, the public is not as benighted as the no-tax crowd thinks – voters understand the need for money to fund education and other services. But the self-muzzling act by Democrats either eager to return to the land of Adele’s, where they have the faux respect of lobbyists who will love them for 120 days and then move on, or to attain higher office is transparent and unproductive, even this early.

Just saying “read my lips” should not be enough for Republicans, just as the Democrats asking us to read their minds is not enough. We know what you don’t want; how about telling us what you want?

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 5 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. To the No New or Increased Tax crowd a simple question. Did the State Employees and the services they provide for ALL Nevada citizens create the deficit or was it the lost revenue caused by the recession?

    The lost revenue must be replaced and the only way to do it is with tax dollars. Temporarily increase taxes until the economy rebounds. There have already been substantial cuts. Enough is enough!

  2. Hopefully they do not raise taxes on any sector and do get rid of many of the enterprise killing regulations. I wont hold my breath. Democrats love rules, Democrats are insecure without them.

  3. Obviously longun45 is one of those people who would like to see all State services eliminated then there wouldn't be a need for any revenue or increased taxes. That is until HE required the use of State services!

    There isn't enough MONEY!! I don't know why that is so hard for some people to understand.

  4. Jon, before we raise taxes why not put the checkbook online. Lets see where this money is going.

    I have a hard time believing that government spending needs to grow faster than inflation and population growth combined in order to maintain "essential" services.

    The fact that we can tax at-will in order to solve budget pinches reduces the incentive for government to wisely use scarce resources. A little budget restraint now and then makes them innovate to actually work for the people instead of innovate ways to employ more people and spend more money to get the same job done.

  5. People are in favor of raising taxes on someone else.

    Ask anyone if they are willing to mail to the government a $100 check per month forever and see what their answer is.

    Jon, show leadership. Make a commitment to donate to the government on a monthly basis.