This is either journalistic oversimplification or lazy reporting. ACORN is not accused of committing voter fraud, but voter registration fraud. More specifically, "compensation for the registration of voters," in violation of NRS 293.805. It is a crime "for a person to provide compensation for registering voters that is based upon: (a) The total number of voters a person registers; or (b) The total number of voters a person registers in a particular political party." That is what ACORN is accused of. To use the term "voter fraud" implies misconduct or tampering with actual votes. Perhaps this is a fine distinction, but it matters.

The debate over taxes is less important to me than the debate over adequately funding state services--public education, transportation, health and safety. Let me use one (repeatedly) failed candidate up north for an example. One-issue candidate Sharron "NO!" Angle always claimed to be "the education candidate," yet everything she stood for showed her utter contempt for state services. __I am the education candidate, but the first thing I'd do is cut K-12's primary source of funding, property taxes. But I'm so totally for education.__

Having a well educated populace costs money. Having roads that aren't ridden with potholes costs money. Having bridges that don't fall down for lack of maintenance (think Minneapolis) costs money. Having public safety/health institutions that are capable of snuffing out wildfires, keeping crime low, and providing adequate health care costs money. That means taxes.

Unfortunately, in this state, virtually every method of diversifying our tax revenue is constitutionally prohibited (income tax, state lottery). The solution to our state's problems isn't as simple as cutting off funding with a chainsaw, or raising taxes so we can spend like drunken sailors. It will take a reasoned approach that will require smart funding cuts and targeted tax increases (or perhaps even some tax decreases). Nobody wants to raise taxes, but to have good state institutions which provide a measure of service requires money, and that means taxes.

jfnance's solution: just do away with state government. It's not like I need it anyway.

I pose a question to you, nance: what are you for (other than no taxes)?

jfnance32,
Are you in favor of destroying state government? Nevada has the second lowest tax burden in the nation, second only to Alaska. Factor out oil revenues in Alaska, and we probably have the lowest tax burden in the country. But we pay too much in taxes, right?

Democrats are in favor of having a world-class education system in this state. Democrats are in favor of having good infrastructure. If a less volatile tax structure would help to accomplish that, good.