NVFBBLOG.ORG
The Trouble With Good Intentions And Action After It Is Too Late
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
To be honest this is not my first attempt at writing this post. Probably for lots of reasons the delete key and starting over later have been the better approach to take.
The subject involves the repair and return to normal operations of the Truckee Canal, the 31 mile ditch that delivers the authorized water diversions from the Truckee River to the Newlands Irrigation Project. Based on an excerpt their March 2008 report, the “canal was designed and constructed by Reclamation (Bureau of Reclamation) in 1903.”
This same report, entitled “Design, Estimating and Construction Review – Truckee Canal Issue Evaluation” shares of what got us to where we are by stating:
The nature of my call to the Bureau of Reclamation and follow-up calls to others involved in the situation, was to find out where things stand in getting the Canal fixed and fully operational again. Remember the date of the break was January 5, 2008 – my phone calls were made on September 2nd, 2010.
Since the break, there was action taken to plug the hole and return to some flow down the canal – albeit a fraction of what the system is authorized to receive from the Truckee River – but, some. Although farmers in the Newlands project didn’t receive their full share of water for the 2008 irrigation season, because of the break – the 2009 and 2010 irrigation seasons have benefited from favorable conditions that allowed for full delivery of the water they own the right to use. Not because of the working condition of the still not totally fixed Truckee Canal, but because of the amount and way water came down the Carson River.
From what I can determine, thanks to special funding from an earmark appropriations, the Bureau of Reclamation has been able to work on a study relating to fixing the canal. The study is described as a planning study, which could be completed in another year. This phase will then lead to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process which offers public consideration for the best possible options for rehab (if any) to decide what might be done to fix the canal. Experience shows that this NEPA process isn’t known for speedy delivery of decisions (although it does seem that when the BOR is pre-ordained to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion – as in the Walker River project – they only take a couple of years and then don’t actually make a final decision.) (But, I digress and could end up having to hit the delete button again, if I don’t get back on track…)
After completing the NEPA decision phase it’s only a matter of finding the money. This might be in the form of a gift from Washington, D.C. (highly unlikely unless an election this November fixes one of the biggest problems the system has been suffering from) or (and most likely) a funding process is determined which provides the work to be done and is paid for by the water right owners in the Newlands Project.
All in all, it will only require another three or five years of being lucky, to avoid the possible shortage of water caused by the bureaucracy’s timely actions to fix a canal (which doesn’t seem to be something that they really want to fix anyway).
In the conversation that I had with BOR officials to learn where things stood, I was assured that it is not the intention of the agency to shortchange anyone from getting their full amount of water (that’s the good intentions concept), but they have to go about this the right way and in a responsible fashion. Imagine, a government agency being frugal with taxpayer money – except when it involves stimulus dollars.
As an organization that is directed by member policy, the official point of view that we have is that the water right owners get their full allocation of water, delivered to their fields in accordance to existing court decrees and availability of water. As long as they continue to be lucky with the conditions of weather and system operations – there isn’t a problem to be dealt with.
Unfortunately, dealing with the problem (and timelines) of the process of fixing a canal could easily result in luck running out and water right owners being short-changed because of the manner in which things weren’t done – then it gets to the “too late” (which is really the problem that shouldn’t have to be encountered).
To be honest this is not my first attempt at writing this post. Probably for lots of reasons the delete key and starting over later have been the better approach to take.
The subject involves the repair and return to normal operations of the Truckee Canal, the 31 mile ditch that delivers the authorized water diversions from the Truckee River to the Newlands Irrigation Project. Based on an excerpt their March 2008 report, the “canal was designed and constructed by Reclamation (Bureau of Reclamation) in 1903.”
This same report, entitled “Design, Estimating and Construction Review – Truckee Canal Issue Evaluation” shares of what got us to where we are by stating:
“At approximately 4:00 a.m. on January 5, 2008, a small section of the Canal failed, diverting a substantial amount of water in the City of Fernley, Nevada. Five Hundred and ninety (590) homes were flooded, about 138 with moderate to severe damage. No fatalities occurred.”
The nature of my call to the Bureau of Reclamation and follow-up calls to others involved in the situation, was to find out where things stand in getting the Canal fixed and fully operational again. Remember the date of the break was January 5, 2008 – my phone calls were made on September 2nd, 2010.
Since the break, there was action taken to plug the hole and return to some flow down the canal – albeit a fraction of what the system is authorized to receive from the Truckee River – but, some. Although farmers in the Newlands project didn’t receive their full share of water for the 2008 irrigation season, because of the break – the 2009 and 2010 irrigation seasons have benefited from favorable conditions that allowed for full delivery of the water they own the right to use. Not because of the working condition of the still not totally fixed Truckee Canal, but because of the amount and way water came down the Carson River.
From what I can determine, thanks to special funding from an earmark appropriations, the Bureau of Reclamation has been able to work on a study relating to fixing the canal. The study is described as a planning study, which could be completed in another year. This phase will then lead to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process which offers public consideration for the best possible options for rehab (if any) to decide what might be done to fix the canal. Experience shows that this NEPA process isn’t known for speedy delivery of decisions (although it does seem that when the BOR is pre-ordained to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion – as in the Walker River project – they only take a couple of years and then don’t actually make a final decision.) (But, I digress and could end up having to hit the delete button again, if I don’t get back on track…)
After completing the NEPA decision phase it’s only a matter of finding the money. This might be in the form of a gift from Washington, D.C. (highly unlikely unless an election this November fixes one of the biggest problems the system has been suffering from) or (and most likely) a funding process is determined which provides the work to be done and is paid for by the water right owners in the Newlands Project.
All in all, it will only require another three or five years of being lucky, to avoid the possible shortage of water caused by the bureaucracy’s timely actions to fix a canal (which doesn’t seem to be something that they really want to fix anyway).
In the conversation that I had with BOR officials to learn where things stood, I was assured that it is not the intention of the agency to shortchange anyone from getting their full amount of water (that’s the good intentions concept), but they have to go about this the right way and in a responsible fashion. Imagine, a government agency being frugal with taxpayer money – except when it involves stimulus dollars.
As an organization that is directed by member policy, the official point of view that we have is that the water right owners get their full allocation of water, delivered to their fields in accordance to existing court decrees and availability of water. As long as they continue to be lucky with the conditions of weather and system operations – there isn’t a problem to be dealt with.
Unfortunately, dealing with the problem (and timelines) of the process of fixing a canal could easily result in luck running out and water right owners being short-changed because of the manner in which things weren’t done – then it gets to the “too late” (which is really the problem that shouldn’t have to be encountered).
Market Place Can Do What Government Can’t?
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
A news blurb on the egg situation from Iowa caught my eye this morning, with Senator Charles Grassley indicating that the marketplace’s response is the best solution to dealing with the egg producer at the center of the salmonella bacteria problem that has brought a lot of eggs into a recall situation and probably harmed the industry. In this news blog item Senator Grassley seems to indicate that unless there was something criminal involved the Food and Drug folks might not have the ability to take action against Jack DeCoster and his egg production facilities. On the other hand, Grassely didn’t pull any punches in making it clear that the non-purchase of the specific name brands would have their own effect in dealing with the situation.
Now, before I get the response back from those who are quick to jump on a non-responsive government agency for failing to act with regulation – it should be noted that the current administration isn’t the same one of the much-maligned President Bush (which from what I’ve read on more than one occasion didn’t do the things they should have in regulating the snot out of any and all business enterprises). It would seem the current administration (despite their government can do anything and everything mode of operation) has also failed to resolve this situation (much like they didn’t do all that was needed doing when the Gulf Oil problem occurred).
Food safety is a serious issue and all attention possible is called for in first making certain that appropriate, science-based, production practices are carried out. That means having in place the necessary regulatory structure to oversee that the practices are applied. It also means having in place the systems to make random checks and trace-back problems as effectively as possible.
Farm Bureau policy has called for the streamlining of the process and putting the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in control, solely responsible, for food inspection and safety. In addition more research and development should be directed at dealing with the technology capabilities of improving food safety results.
There will be situations which happen (we don’t live in a perfect world with a zero-risk possibility) when problems will still need attention. In addition to full-force implementation of actions provided by law and regulatory oversight – the marketplace can and should be allowed to extract its retribution for those who have failed to measure up to the responsibility of meeting safety requirements.
A news blurb on the egg situation from Iowa caught my eye this morning, with Senator Charles Grassley indicating that the marketplace’s response is the best solution to dealing with the egg producer at the center of the salmonella bacteria problem that has brought a lot of eggs into a recall situation and probably harmed the industry. In this news blog item Senator Grassley seems to indicate that unless there was something criminal involved the Food and Drug folks might not have the ability to take action against Jack DeCoster and his egg production facilities. On the other hand, Grassely didn’t pull any punches in making it clear that the non-purchase of the specific name brands would have their own effect in dealing with the situation.
Now, before I get the response back from those who are quick to jump on a non-responsive government agency for failing to act with regulation – it should be noted that the current administration isn’t the same one of the much-maligned President Bush (which from what I’ve read on more than one occasion didn’t do the things they should have in regulating the snot out of any and all business enterprises). It would seem the current administration (despite their government can do anything and everything mode of operation) has also failed to resolve this situation (much like they didn’t do all that was needed doing when the Gulf Oil problem occurred).
Food safety is a serious issue and all attention possible is called for in first making certain that appropriate, science-based, production practices are carried out. That means having in place the necessary regulatory structure to oversee that the practices are applied. It also means having in place the systems to make random checks and trace-back problems as effectively as possible.
Farm Bureau policy has called for the streamlining of the process and putting the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in control, solely responsible, for food inspection and safety. In addition more research and development should be directed at dealing with the technology capabilities of improving food safety results.
There will be situations which happen (we don’t live in a perfect world with a zero-risk possibility) when problems will still need attention. In addition to full-force implementation of actions provided by law and regulatory oversight – the marketplace can and should be allowed to extract its retribution for those who have failed to measure up to the responsibility of meeting safety requirements.
Finding The Next Generation And Keeping The Middle In Agriculture
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
Last week, United States Agriculture Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan came to Nevada for a visit. She came through Las Vegas on Thursday as part of the Obama Administration’s efforts to spotlight wherever federal stimulus dollars might have landed on the ground and taking credit for whatever good might have come from the spending. On Friday, she came North to Reno and stopped by the 2010 version of the Nevada State Fair, holding a listening session with Nevada agricultural producers, interested in discussing the work her agency is doing and how they might help out more.
Most of Nevada’s agriculture is not involved in government programs offered by the various agencies of the United States Department of Agriculture – so holding a meeting in Reno is far different from meeting in the Midwest, South or other parts of the country where Farm Bills are a much bigger deal. During the conversation though, one important point was raised by a producer who was concerned about the ability of one generation of agricultural producer being able to transition the ownership of their family’s ranch to the next generation.
Merrigan noted that this concern about getting a next generation of agricultural producer is on the radar screen of her boss, Agricultural Secretary Tom Vilsack and others at the United States Department of Agriculture. It’s too bad the U.S. Senate who are stalling on dealing with the Death Tax situation weren’t as in-tune with at least a portion of the issue involving generational transitions, but then the leadership of the U.S. Senate is more concerned with tax increases and punitive actions for anyone who has acquired anything…
Another producer also raised the issue of the challenge in sustaining a mid-sized agricultural operation on a going forward basis. Smaller agricultural operations have the ability to be part-time business enterprises with the producer likely employed in off-the-farm work to make a living. Larger operations, with sales of enough magnitude are able to produce enough income where at least one of the family members is able to stay on the farm/ranch and get the work done. The middle sized ag. operation isn’t big enough to generate the revenue to support the business and the family, but still is of the size where getting the work accomplished and working off the operation is difficult.
Again, Merrigan noted that the “disappearing middle” is of concern to policy makers as they think through the future of farm programs.
Having an agricultural business climate where making a sufficient profit is possible needs to be on the minds of policy makers at both the national and state level. This isn’t to suggest that government’s role has to be manifest in the form of subsidies or other targeted benefits. Ideally, the market-place will provide the rewards necessary for long-term sustainability – as well as offering the opportunity for unsuccessful operations to go out of business.
In an environment which rewards entrepreneurs who succeed, applying their creativity and approach to business operations, agricultural entrepreneurs can also ply their trade. Government policy which allows for capital formation to take place and transfer from one generation to the next without the negative consequences envisioned by those currently in power would be as much of a solution as we should expect and have the economic system we’re supposed to have in operation.
Last week, United States Agriculture Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan came to Nevada for a visit. She came through Las Vegas on Thursday as part of the Obama Administration’s efforts to spotlight wherever federal stimulus dollars might have landed on the ground and taking credit for whatever good might have come from the spending. On Friday, she came North to Reno and stopped by the 2010 version of the Nevada State Fair, holding a listening session with Nevada agricultural producers, interested in discussing the work her agency is doing and how they might help out more.
Most of Nevada’s agriculture is not involved in government programs offered by the various agencies of the United States Department of Agriculture – so holding a meeting in Reno is far different from meeting in the Midwest, South or other parts of the country where Farm Bills are a much bigger deal. During the conversation though, one important point was raised by a producer who was concerned about the ability of one generation of agricultural producer being able to transition the ownership of their family’s ranch to the next generation.
Merrigan noted that this concern about getting a next generation of agricultural producer is on the radar screen of her boss, Agricultural Secretary Tom Vilsack and others at the United States Department of Agriculture. It’s too bad the U.S. Senate who are stalling on dealing with the Death Tax situation weren’t as in-tune with at least a portion of the issue involving generational transitions, but then the leadership of the U.S. Senate is more concerned with tax increases and punitive actions for anyone who has acquired anything…
Another producer also raised the issue of the challenge in sustaining a mid-sized agricultural operation on a going forward basis. Smaller agricultural operations have the ability to be part-time business enterprises with the producer likely employed in off-the-farm work to make a living. Larger operations, with sales of enough magnitude are able to produce enough income where at least one of the family members is able to stay on the farm/ranch and get the work done. The middle sized ag. operation isn’t big enough to generate the revenue to support the business and the family, but still is of the size where getting the work accomplished and working off the operation is difficult.
Again, Merrigan noted that the “disappearing middle” is of concern to policy makers as they think through the future of farm programs.
Having an agricultural business climate where making a sufficient profit is possible needs to be on the minds of policy makers at both the national and state level. This isn’t to suggest that government’s role has to be manifest in the form of subsidies or other targeted benefits. Ideally, the market-place will provide the rewards necessary for long-term sustainability – as well as offering the opportunity for unsuccessful operations to go out of business.
In an environment which rewards entrepreneurs who succeed, applying their creativity and approach to business operations, agricultural entrepreneurs can also ply their trade. Government policy which allows for capital formation to take place and transfer from one generation to the next without the negative consequences envisioned by those currently in power would be as much of a solution as we should expect and have the economic system we’re supposed to have in operation.
Let’s Talk Taxes
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
It’s not a discussion that is supposed to happen in Nevada. Democrats don’t talk about taxes – they just get together in their caucus room, decide who has been vilified enough to be forced to anti-up and then come out and press the green “Yes” votes in unison. Republicans don’t talk about taxes because when they do – they get hammered for having an opinion which doesn’t fit with the mantra they are supposed to be espousing.
I fully understand the reason for holding the line with regard to the “No New Taxes” theme. It is part of the organizational policy book that I work to implement daily…
Nevada Farm Bureau is opposed to the adoption of a tax on business profits as well as the creation and implementation of a gross business tax, assessing a tax against business incomes. What’s more our policy states that “We oppose any new taxes, fees or any other schemes that generate additional revenue for government without Farm Bureau involvement and approval.” Let there be no mistake – we are not in favor of increases to taxes or the creation of new ones that we don’t already have!
Herein lies a problem – Where do Nevada taxpayers go to have an honest and open discussion about taxes?
It makes perfect and legitimate sense to take the “No Taxes” point of view, because we also don’t get to have a legitimate public policy discussion about whether we are getting our money’s worth for the spending that takes place. To a certain degree “starving the buggers out” is the only way that we’ve gotten to the point where Nevada government even got to simply decreasing the level of increases…
We’re told that spending reform is in the works (at least from a backroom point of view) with the budget folks putting together a duplicate proposal. One version will come in the form that has been done and is recognized as the way Nevada government lays out budget proposals. The other version will present a priority system which highlights the things that state government is required to do by law and court orders, tapering down to lesser priorities which are being paid for, but would be worth not doing and paying for with money we don’t have.
Getting our budget system reformed and also getting our big-ticket expenses (Education) reformed to make sure that we get the value we should for the investments made are must do matters that have to be accomplished prior to moving forward with taxes – but having those tax conversations out in public and in a forum where the chips will fall where they may – would also be worthwhile improvements. The behind-closed-door systems of the past few legislative sessions where things really get decided before they are “decided” and holding tax bill hearings on legislative proposals which aren’t even officially available for hearing (like the Nevada Assembly did in 2009) can’t be justified or found to be acceptable ways of doing business.
Our tax structure does need evaluation and consideration for changes and that should be addressed through a public forum with full disclosure for who is proposing what as well as careful analysis of the ramifications for the variety of proposals offered . Somehow there ought to be a taxing system which a broad-based group of citizens (like everybody) pays and make those payments in full awareness that they are paying the taxes being paid. Our current system of hiding the tax burden and pretending that fairness is to be found with someone other than voters doing the paying – is not sound policy or a valid approach to be taken. Perhaps when we each understand how much government is costing us, we’ll be able to better evaluate how much we actually want to spend to get the government we’re getting…
It’s not a discussion that is supposed to happen in Nevada. Democrats don’t talk about taxes – they just get together in their caucus room, decide who has been vilified enough to be forced to anti-up and then come out and press the green “Yes” votes in unison. Republicans don’t talk about taxes because when they do – they get hammered for having an opinion which doesn’t fit with the mantra they are supposed to be espousing.
I fully understand the reason for holding the line with regard to the “No New Taxes” theme. It is part of the organizational policy book that I work to implement daily…
Nevada Farm Bureau is opposed to the adoption of a tax on business profits as well as the creation and implementation of a gross business tax, assessing a tax against business incomes. What’s more our policy states that “We oppose any new taxes, fees or any other schemes that generate additional revenue for government without Farm Bureau involvement and approval.” Let there be no mistake – we are not in favor of increases to taxes or the creation of new ones that we don’t already have!
Herein lies a problem – Where do Nevada taxpayers go to have an honest and open discussion about taxes?
It makes perfect and legitimate sense to take the “No Taxes” point of view, because we also don’t get to have a legitimate public policy discussion about whether we are getting our money’s worth for the spending that takes place. To a certain degree “starving the buggers out” is the only way that we’ve gotten to the point where Nevada government even got to simply decreasing the level of increases…
We’re told that spending reform is in the works (at least from a backroom point of view) with the budget folks putting together a duplicate proposal. One version will come in the form that has been done and is recognized as the way Nevada government lays out budget proposals. The other version will present a priority system which highlights the things that state government is required to do by law and court orders, tapering down to lesser priorities which are being paid for, but would be worth not doing and paying for with money we don’t have.
Getting our budget system reformed and also getting our big-ticket expenses (Education) reformed to make sure that we get the value we should for the investments made are must do matters that have to be accomplished prior to moving forward with taxes – but having those tax conversations out in public and in a forum where the chips will fall where they may – would also be worthwhile improvements. The behind-closed-door systems of the past few legislative sessions where things really get decided before they are “decided” and holding tax bill hearings on legislative proposals which aren’t even officially available for hearing (like the Nevada Assembly did in 2009) can’t be justified or found to be acceptable ways of doing business.
Our tax structure does need evaluation and consideration for changes and that should be addressed through a public forum with full disclosure for who is proposing what as well as careful analysis of the ramifications for the variety of proposals offered . Somehow there ought to be a taxing system which a broad-based group of citizens (like everybody) pays and make those payments in full awareness that they are paying the taxes being paid. Our current system of hiding the tax burden and pretending that fairness is to be found with someone other than voters doing the paying – is not sound policy or a valid approach to be taken. Perhaps when we each understand how much government is costing us, we’ll be able to better evaluate how much we actually want to spend to get the government we’re getting…
It’s The Spending
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
With the interchange of tax ideas bouncing around this campaign season it seems that the real issue that should be getting attention is getting lost. The focus really should be on the spending. When that side of the equation is dealt with in a responsible fashion, the determination can then shift to the taxation side and figuring out what approach – or combination works.
But, back to the focus of spending –
I recently had the chance to join a group of business interests in a briefing by Nevada Budget Director Andrew Clinger who offered some foundational bullet points to help show the situation for the state’s general fund…
The perception that 90 percent of the Nevada General Fund Budget is spent in places which politically it are difficult to cut, is probably one of the reasons that so many are quick to jump on the “let’s raise taxes” bandwagon. However, in spite of the rhetoric and wailing, there is just cause to put as much as possible on the table for examining for spending adjustments – even (and especially) the hallowed budget allocations for education.
The idea that some have that they should be simply granted whatever they want from state taxpayers is completely out of line. Details like this show that a more complete evaluation of what we’re getting for the money being spent is warranted.
From the standpoint of K-12 education, although it’s too early to simply put the whole category “off limits” – a fundamental requirement before going forward must include the implementation of the reform steps that are spelled out in “Nevada’s Promise: Excellence, Rigor and Equity” which was prepared as Nevada’s unsuccessful attempt to secure federal funds from the Race To The Top grant program. “Nevada’s Promise”, prepared by the Education Reform Blue Ribbon Task Force, contains the foundational components that are required to give us a better education system – not just a lot more money spent.
Getting greater value for the taxpayers’ dollars spent is the bottom line we need to be working to achieve. When we have the confidence that state’s government expenditures are based on priorities we can sustainably afford and are delivering the outcomes we should be receiving in return – then we can move to the conversations about whether taxes need to be increased and what type of taxes work best.
With the interchange of tax ideas bouncing around this campaign season it seems that the real issue that should be getting attention is getting lost. The focus really should be on the spending. When that side of the equation is dealt with in a responsible fashion, the determination can then shift to the taxation side and figuring out what approach – or combination works.
But, back to the focus of spending –
I recently had the chance to join a group of business interests in a briefing by Nevada Budget Director Andrew Clinger who offered some foundational bullet points to help show the situation for the state’s general fund…
- Nevada’s General Fund budget is roughly $6.5 Billion
- The supposed $3 Billion budget shortfall is based on an assumption that the furloughs and step increases for government employees will be going away – if things continue as they have been…$1/2 Billion of the “hole” is fixed
- The supposed $3 Billion budget shortfall is also based on an assumption that the $1 Billion worth of taxes, increased in the 2009 Nevada Legislature, “sunset”
- Education accounts for about 54 percent of the total state general fund budget – 39 percent K-12 and 15 percent for Higher Education
- Health and Human Services accounts for about 30 percent of the state general fund budget (with Medicaid a significant amount of that total and because of the acceptance of Federal Stimulus dollars, tweaking the eligibility for Medicaid isn’t one of the options available)
- When you add in the costs for Corrections (Education, Health and Human Services and Corrections) – you have about 90 percent of the total Nevada General Fund Budget
The perception that 90 percent of the Nevada General Fund Budget is spent in places which politically it are difficult to cut, is probably one of the reasons that so many are quick to jump on the “let’s raise taxes” bandwagon. However, in spite of the rhetoric and wailing, there is just cause to put as much as possible on the table for examining for spending adjustments – even (and especially) the hallowed budget allocations for education.
The idea that some have that they should be simply granted whatever they want from state taxpayers is completely out of line. Details like this show that a more complete evaluation of what we’re getting for the money being spent is warranted.
From the standpoint of K-12 education, although it’s too early to simply put the whole category “off limits” – a fundamental requirement before going forward must include the implementation of the reform steps that are spelled out in “Nevada’s Promise: Excellence, Rigor and Equity” which was prepared as Nevada’s unsuccessful attempt to secure federal funds from the Race To The Top grant program. “Nevada’s Promise”, prepared by the Education Reform Blue Ribbon Task Force, contains the foundational components that are required to give us a better education system – not just a lot more money spent.
Getting greater value for the taxpayers’ dollars spent is the bottom line we need to be working to achieve. When we have the confidence that state’s government expenditures are based on priorities we can sustainably afford and are delivering the outcomes we should be receiving in return – then we can move to the conversations about whether taxes need to be increased and what type of taxes work best.
In Search of Self Government
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
Only 76 pages in length, this wonderful book provides some very common-sense and easily embraced ideas which as much as anything summarize the values Americans hold dear – in spite of the elites who pursue implementing a system where they run the government and the government runs the nation. The author, Scott Rasmussen, is the founder and President of Rasmussen Reports – the independent media company specializing in the collection, publication and distribution of public-opinion polling information.
The book, In Search of Self-Governance, promotes the necessity of a strong surge of involvement by citizens to fix what is broken so that government may once again return to be consent of the governed. Once accomplished, the outcome would again be provided for citizens to return to their daily lives of governing themselves as opposed to long enduring the burdens of being chaperones in the political world.
Following my read of the Rasmussen Report’s identification that a strong majority of citizens believe the country is going in the wrong direction while those who think that they are in charge believe they have things going in the right direction, I ordered the book in Search of Self-Governance, not really expecting to get what I got when it was delivered.
Much more than a conservative manifesto appeal for eliminating government all together, the writing struck a common-sense balance which seeks to empower consumers to determine successful business enterprises based on the service and quality delivered – as opposed to what inside deal the business is able to strike with the “powerful” in government. Likewise government control is replaced with leadership who advocate for self-governance and actively work for letting people live their lives without supervision.
Although not a huge fan of government regulation – at least the approach of regulation for the sake of regulation, I found the ideas outlined by Rasmussen to capture some of the spirit for government’s proper role that I haven’t been able to adequately document. “Free markets don’t mean an unfettered laissez-faire capitalism where anything goes,” he wrote. “As with almost everything else in a self-governing society, there is an important supporting role for government to play. But, it is a supporting role and one that should empower consumers rather than replace them.”
“When regulators are in charge, those who can game the system win. When consumers are in charge, those who serve the consumers win.” Rasmussen observes, adding. “In a self-governing society, service to the consumer must be the driving force that determines success or failure for businesses.”
Needless to say, I strongly recommend the book and ideas for others to read, consider and share. I’ll be doing some more on it in upcoming posts.
“The American people don’t want to be governed from the left, the right, or the center. The American people want to govern themselves. In fact, they have been governing themselves for hundreds of years, continue to do so today, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. That’s true regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats are running the show in Washington, D.C.” – In Search of Self Government by Scott W. Rasmussen
Only 76 pages in length, this wonderful book provides some very common-sense and easily embraced ideas which as much as anything summarize the values Americans hold dear – in spite of the elites who pursue implementing a system where they run the government and the government runs the nation. The author, Scott Rasmussen, is the founder and President of Rasmussen Reports – the independent media company specializing in the collection, publication and distribution of public-opinion polling information.
The book, In Search of Self-Governance, promotes the necessity of a strong surge of involvement by citizens to fix what is broken so that government may once again return to be consent of the governed. Once accomplished, the outcome would again be provided for citizens to return to their daily lives of governing themselves as opposed to long enduring the burdens of being chaperones in the political world.
Following my read of the Rasmussen Report’s identification that a strong majority of citizens believe the country is going in the wrong direction while those who think that they are in charge believe they have things going in the right direction, I ordered the book in Search of Self-Governance, not really expecting to get what I got when it was delivered.
Much more than a conservative manifesto appeal for eliminating government all together, the writing struck a common-sense balance which seeks to empower consumers to determine successful business enterprises based on the service and quality delivered – as opposed to what inside deal the business is able to strike with the “powerful” in government. Likewise government control is replaced with leadership who advocate for self-governance and actively work for letting people live their lives without supervision.
Although not a huge fan of government regulation – at least the approach of regulation for the sake of regulation, I found the ideas outlined by Rasmussen to capture some of the spirit for government’s proper role that I haven’t been able to adequately document. “Free markets don’t mean an unfettered laissez-faire capitalism where anything goes,” he wrote. “As with almost everything else in a self-governing society, there is an important supporting role for government to play. But, it is a supporting role and one that should empower consumers rather than replace them.”
“When regulators are in charge, those who can game the system win. When consumers are in charge, those who serve the consumers win.” Rasmussen observes, adding. “In a self-governing society, service to the consumer must be the driving force that determines success or failure for businesses.”
Needless to say, I strongly recommend the book and ideas for others to read, consider and share. I’ll be doing some more on it in upcoming posts.
Fixing Nevada Government’s Spending Problem
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
Hardly a day goes by where someone doesn’t mention the alleged $3 Billion shortfall in Nevada’s budget going into the next legislative session. Commentators on the situation constantly bemoan any consideration that not increasing or inventing new taxes is a plausible or acceptable position for anyone to take. Anyone suggesting such a concept on Nevada Newsmakers results in the host prancing all over them with indignant questioning along the lines of “How can you cut the state budget in half?” “How can you destroy Nevada that way?” etc.
The one thing we seem to be a little short of involves details of what exactly gets figured into those forecast of the pending $3 Billion (or more) shortfall. Is the gap based on not having the revenue dollars from the tax increases passed during the last legislative session – and set to expire in 2011? Is the gap based on the assumption that government spending needs are going to increase (as they have been automatically increased by past legislative authorizations)? There are lots of reasons to need a complete picture to assess this situation as opposed to the sky-is-falling prognostications which are heck-bent to stampede us all into blindly accepting a huge tax increase and expansion of the type of taxes collected.
Although there has been some nudging around the edges with respect to state spending discussions, a more complete presentation on this subject has also been a little slim. We’re told that state agencies are going through a more priority-oriented budget process in preparing for the next biennium plan, which is great news, although not yet determined. When finalized and made know, it would be a significant benefit for a complete explanation and discussion of the foundation and basic details involved in what this approach has yielded.
Reading the writings of another opinionated commentator, I was reminded of an earlier analysis that documented how much Nevada’s legislative spending machine has run up expenditures over the recent budget-expanding binges. (29-plus percent)
When the economy was generating revenue the Nevada Legislature spent money and increased taxes to get more to spend (because we were growing and the need was greater). When the bottom fell out, the 2009 Nevada Legislature still increased spending and still ramped up tax increases (because the need was greater). Now we’re supposed to expect even further tax increases because there is still not enough to finance the “needs” of Nevada government.
It would appear that those who are in control of the Nevada Legislature are not capable of responsible spending or unrelenting desires to spend more. Having listen and witnessed first-hand their tirades about government and their public employee buddies being more worthy of the resources generated by private citizens – then the business enterprises who risked their capital and earned the income produced – it seems high-time for a little education to be applied in the voting booths this November.
Taking the majority party down a notch or six could send the signal that Nevada government isn’t the reason we go to work every day (at least those of us who still have work to go to). Bringing about a legislative make-up that doesn’t provide for a veto-proof majority in the chambers at either end of the Legislative Building would be a marked improvement to create a process where discussions and greater public exchange can occur (as opposed to the behind-closed-door deal cutting we’ve had in the most recent sessions).
Through this change, we should also be able to get to a more meaningful and sustainable approach for deciding how the funds Nevada taxpayers provide will be spent.
Hardly a day goes by where someone doesn’t mention the alleged $3 Billion shortfall in Nevada’s budget going into the next legislative session. Commentators on the situation constantly bemoan any consideration that not increasing or inventing new taxes is a plausible or acceptable position for anyone to take. Anyone suggesting such a concept on Nevada Newsmakers results in the host prancing all over them with indignant questioning along the lines of “How can you cut the state budget in half?” “How can you destroy Nevada that way?” etc.
The one thing we seem to be a little short of involves details of what exactly gets figured into those forecast of the pending $3 Billion (or more) shortfall. Is the gap based on not having the revenue dollars from the tax increases passed during the last legislative session – and set to expire in 2011? Is the gap based on the assumption that government spending needs are going to increase (as they have been automatically increased by past legislative authorizations)? There are lots of reasons to need a complete picture to assess this situation as opposed to the sky-is-falling prognostications which are heck-bent to stampede us all into blindly accepting a huge tax increase and expansion of the type of taxes collected.
Although there has been some nudging around the edges with respect to state spending discussions, a more complete presentation on this subject has also been a little slim. We’re told that state agencies are going through a more priority-oriented budget process in preparing for the next biennium plan, which is great news, although not yet determined. When finalized and made know, it would be a significant benefit for a complete explanation and discussion of the foundation and basic details involved in what this approach has yielded.
Reading the writings of another opinionated commentator, I was reminded of an earlier analysis that documented how much Nevada’s legislative spending machine has run up expenditures over the recent budget-expanding binges. (29-plus percent)
When the economy was generating revenue the Nevada Legislature spent money and increased taxes to get more to spend (because we were growing and the need was greater). When the bottom fell out, the 2009 Nevada Legislature still increased spending and still ramped up tax increases (because the need was greater). Now we’re supposed to expect even further tax increases because there is still not enough to finance the “needs” of Nevada government.
It would appear that those who are in control of the Nevada Legislature are not capable of responsible spending or unrelenting desires to spend more. Having listen and witnessed first-hand their tirades about government and their public employee buddies being more worthy of the resources generated by private citizens – then the business enterprises who risked their capital and earned the income produced – it seems high-time for a little education to be applied in the voting booths this November.
Taking the majority party down a notch or six could send the signal that Nevada government isn’t the reason we go to work every day (at least those of us who still have work to go to). Bringing about a legislative make-up that doesn’t provide for a veto-proof majority in the chambers at either end of the Legislative Building would be a marked improvement to create a process where discussions and greater public exchange can occur (as opposed to the behind-closed-door deal cutting we’ve had in the most recent sessions).
Through this change, we should also be able to get to a more meaningful and sustainable approach for deciding how the funds Nevada taxpayers provide will be spent.
Things Won’t Get Better Heading In The Wrong Direction
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
In spite of the millions of campaign dollars being spent to flood our public media and fill our mailboxes with the regime’s political propaganda, the efforts to redistribute private sector resources has and will continue to decrease economic well-being and increase unemployment and economic distress. As the planned tax increases hit our wallets, with both national and state governments turning up the siphoning of hard-earned and scarce dollars, what’s already bad will get even worse.
Already reports of the U.S. Government needing to internally absorb the debt that wanton legislative spending has caused are foretelling of what we will have in store. Further analysis , as offered by Geoffrey Lawrence at the Nevada Research Policy Institute, highlights the evidence of how faulty actions by those we’ve elected to represent us are devastating the private sector’s ability to generate the economic activity necessary to sustain our state and country.
Those willing to subscribe to the tenet of government’s ability to provide – as a legitimate responsibility of governmental activity – should explain how the redistribution efforts accomplish anything worthwhile. History (and current circumstances), clearly demonstrate that doing what’s being done is a miserably failed approach. Doing more of the same (and trying to convince us that it would even be worse if government wasn’t digging the hole deeper) cannot get us to a better condition.
The solution rest in retiring those in charge of making this happen and electing representatives at the state and national level who respect the private sector and believe that limited government will, as it has in the past, provide for maximum individual freedom and overall prosperity. Whether in face-to-face discussions, phone calls, e-mails or whatever form of communication available – we need to impress on our fellow Nevada citizens that they need to act in November and vote out of office those who are using government to imprison us and destroy our economic future.
In spite of the millions of campaign dollars being spent to flood our public media and fill our mailboxes with the regime’s political propaganda, the efforts to redistribute private sector resources has and will continue to decrease economic well-being and increase unemployment and economic distress. As the planned tax increases hit our wallets, with both national and state governments turning up the siphoning of hard-earned and scarce dollars, what’s already bad will get even worse.
Already reports of the U.S. Government needing to internally absorb the debt that wanton legislative spending has caused are foretelling of what we will have in store. Further analysis , as offered by Geoffrey Lawrence at the Nevada Research Policy Institute, highlights the evidence of how faulty actions by those we’ve elected to represent us are devastating the private sector’s ability to generate the economic activity necessary to sustain our state and country.
Those willing to subscribe to the tenet of government’s ability to provide – as a legitimate responsibility of governmental activity – should explain how the redistribution efforts accomplish anything worthwhile. History (and current circumstances), clearly demonstrate that doing what’s being done is a miserably failed approach. Doing more of the same (and trying to convince us that it would even be worse if government wasn’t digging the hole deeper) cannot get us to a better condition.
The solution rest in retiring those in charge of making this happen and electing representatives at the state and national level who respect the private sector and believe that limited government will, as it has in the past, provide for maximum individual freedom and overall prosperity. Whether in face-to-face discussions, phone calls, e-mails or whatever form of communication available – we need to impress on our fellow Nevada citizens that they need to act in November and vote out of office those who are using government to imprison us and destroy our economic future.
Progress Isn’t About Paying More To Get Less
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
Perhaps you’ve noticed that there is a rather strong desire on the part of very vocal people that we ought to be obtaining more of our energy from non-carbon based sources. Alternative energy production is thought by these quite zealous ideologues to not only be the foundation for Nevada’s future economy – it will also save the planet.
Even as a non-believer in the theory that the planet needs to be saved, I don’t have any more particular problem in alternative energy sources than perhaps the idea that somehow in the development process – somebody ought to figure out a way for the end-result to be an economically affordable alternative. I don’t consider affordable energy to be a right (but, then I also don’t consider several other essential services or products to be “rights” either). I do believe that achieving an affordable price by unlocking or discovering a new version or approach will be a more appropriate manner to move forward than using government’s power to artificially force current carbon-based energy prices higher.
I also don’t consider the concept of trying to shame us into thinking higher energy prices is a workable strategy for gaining greater acceptance. This seems to be the “encouragement” at the heart of this Las Vegas Sun editorial.
The point that caught my eye was this central theme:
I don’t claim to be an economic expert. I had one college course on the subject (it was required for graduation). I have been exposed to a variety of different economic reports, books and other sources of information over the years – but, to this point I have not found a lot of materials which indicate that paying more for something (than you otherwise are required to) is a desirable economic choice. Nearly all of the economic thinkers I’ve come into contact with have indicated that the best approach is to be found in lower cost selections.
I don’t think I’ve heard of anyone complaining because their electrical bill was too low…or found a business enterprise failing because their costs of being in business just weren’t high enough.
At some point in time alternative energy production could be a positive economic engine for not only a prosperous Nevada, but also the country as a whole. To get to that point, the foundation of why it is a good choice, as a source, has to be changed away from the social engineering philosophy and toward it being a viable and more cost-effective system.
Perhaps you’ve noticed that there is a rather strong desire on the part of very vocal people that we ought to be obtaining more of our energy from non-carbon based sources. Alternative energy production is thought by these quite zealous ideologues to not only be the foundation for Nevada’s future economy – it will also save the planet.
Even as a non-believer in the theory that the planet needs to be saved, I don’t have any more particular problem in alternative energy sources than perhaps the idea that somehow in the development process – somebody ought to figure out a way for the end-result to be an economically affordable alternative. I don’t consider affordable energy to be a right (but, then I also don’t consider several other essential services or products to be “rights” either). I do believe that achieving an affordable price by unlocking or discovering a new version or approach will be a more appropriate manner to move forward than using government’s power to artificially force current carbon-based energy prices higher.
I also don’t consider the concept of trying to shame us into thinking higher energy prices is a workable strategy for gaining greater acceptance. This seems to be the “encouragement” at the heart of this Las Vegas Sun editorial.
The point that caught my eye was this central theme:
As reported Tuesday by The New York Times, Portugal is expected to derive nearly 45 percent of its electricity this year from renewable resources, a remarkable increase from 17 percent a mere five years ago. This is a significant achievement in light of the fact that Portuguese residents continue to pay higher electricity prices than we do in the United States.Somehow the concept of wishing I could move to Portugal and pay higher energy prices than the United States – or worse strenuously desiring to have higher energy prices here…so we could be more like Portugal didn’t resonate with me.
I don’t claim to be an economic expert. I had one college course on the subject (it was required for graduation). I have been exposed to a variety of different economic reports, books and other sources of information over the years – but, to this point I have not found a lot of materials which indicate that paying more for something (than you otherwise are required to) is a desirable economic choice. Nearly all of the economic thinkers I’ve come into contact with have indicated that the best approach is to be found in lower cost selections.
I don’t think I’ve heard of anyone complaining because their electrical bill was too low…or found a business enterprise failing because their costs of being in business just weren’t high enough.
At some point in time alternative energy production could be a positive economic engine for not only a prosperous Nevada, but also the country as a whole. To get to that point, the foundation of why it is a good choice, as a source, has to be changed away from the social engineering philosophy and toward it being a viable and more cost-effective system.
We’re Not On The Same Page As Those In Charge
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
One of the principle concepts in the “November is Coming ” campaign is that unless we change those who are in charge of government’s impositions – we’re going to continue to be getting the same (and probably in a worse dosage). It is oblivious that those running things in Washington, D.C. and in Carson City are committed to giving us more of the same.
This report from Rasmussen clearly shows that “they” think what they are doing is the right thing to be doing. It also clearly shows that those of us being done to aren’t of the same mindset.
Having come to the conclusion that our government is taking us in the wrong direction we need to understand and be resolute in the matter of taking actions to fix what’s going badly. The first step of that process is changing those who are in charge of taking us in the wrong direction. Not only do we need to follow through with our own actions to bring about this change – we also need to reach out and connect with others, encouraging their actions for the same results.
As it relates to state representation in Carson City, our attention must be on not only working to elect representatives who are dedicated to reducing state government’s spending and expansion, but we also must work to seek the support of voters outside of our local districts to elect the same type of candidates in their respective areas.
Unless the current majority party is reduced in their numbers by enough members to have the votes less than the two-thirds level – especially in the Nevada Assembly – the same outcomes of the past number of legislative sessions will result. Government spending will be increased and tax burdens made heavier, further weakening an already very sick economy. Furthermore, this being a year where redistricting of voting districts is on the agenda, the majority party running rough-shod over the legislative process will result in rural Nevada being further disadvantaged in legislative representation and the power structure being reaffirmed for another decade.
Although it has been said in the past – “elections have consequences” – the 2010 Election ranks as perhaps the most critical we’ve faced. It is imperative that all which can be done – be done – electing representatives who share our mainstream values and consider limited government as the best course for economic prosperity and freedom.
The champions of larger government want us to believe that their warped perspective of government being the central provider for everything is the way things should be and expanded to become more so. Those who advocate this agenda and who wish us to be grateful for their benevolence in providing us with what they say we need…should be sent home in November, no longer in their political posts of power, redistributing their way to an expanded base of dependent minions.
One of the principle concepts in the “November is Coming ” campaign is that unless we change those who are in charge of government’s impositions – we’re going to continue to be getting the same (and probably in a worse dosage). It is oblivious that those running things in Washington, D.C. and in Carson City are committed to giving us more of the same.
This report from Rasmussen clearly shows that “they” think what they are doing is the right thing to be doing. It also clearly shows that those of us being done to aren’t of the same mindset.
Having come to the conclusion that our government is taking us in the wrong direction we need to understand and be resolute in the matter of taking actions to fix what’s going badly. The first step of that process is changing those who are in charge of taking us in the wrong direction. Not only do we need to follow through with our own actions to bring about this change – we also need to reach out and connect with others, encouraging their actions for the same results.
As it relates to state representation in Carson City, our attention must be on not only working to elect representatives who are dedicated to reducing state government’s spending and expansion, but we also must work to seek the support of voters outside of our local districts to elect the same type of candidates in their respective areas.
Unless the current majority party is reduced in their numbers by enough members to have the votes less than the two-thirds level – especially in the Nevada Assembly – the same outcomes of the past number of legislative sessions will result. Government spending will be increased and tax burdens made heavier, further weakening an already very sick economy. Furthermore, this being a year where redistricting of voting districts is on the agenda, the majority party running rough-shod over the legislative process will result in rural Nevada being further disadvantaged in legislative representation and the power structure being reaffirmed for another decade.
Although it has been said in the past – “elections have consequences” – the 2010 Election ranks as perhaps the most critical we’ve faced. It is imperative that all which can be done – be done – electing representatives who share our mainstream values and consider limited government as the best course for economic prosperity and freedom.
The champions of larger government want us to believe that their warped perspective of government being the central provider for everything is the way things should be and expanded to become more so. Those who advocate this agenda and who wish us to be grateful for their benevolence in providing us with what they say we need…should be sent home in November, no longer in their political posts of power, redistributing their way to an expanded base of dependent minions.