NVFBBLOG.ORG
Maybe If We Were Just Taxing More
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
Those in charge of the Nevada Legislature will probably not consider the dire straights of business as a reason for not pushing to expand the tax base and require the private sector to pay more so that their friends who cash those state government checks can be provided for, but this type of information should drive home the point that Nevada business cannot pay what they don’t have. The belief that there should be no end to the expansion of government payouts seems to be a concept that has no understanding or capability of being grasped by the champions of Big Government.
One hope for a meaningful solution to the drive for further expansion of Nevada government and even greater tax burdens will be the 2010 election and putting people in office who understand that fiscal responsibility would be a welcomed change. The notion needs to be dismissed that all it will take is a magic tax system which requires business to pay their fair share – and all our spending requirements can be satisfied.
I suppose if you want to grow even greater unemployment rates and further cripple (perhaps even destroy) the state’s economy entirely – tax increases and expansion of the public sector at the expense of the private sector which has to pay the bills – probably will be a quick way to do it. The level of legislatively approved spending has exceeded the ability for business enterprises to carry the weight and its showing in not only the unemployment rates, but also in the deficit that lawmakers had to backfill with more of their schemes during the 2010 special session. Still the majority party doesn’t get it…their perspective is just require more taxes to be paid and everything will be fine.
This demonstration clearly indicates that unless Nevada voters can be protected with a constitutional provision to limit state spending – the hole’s our legislators are digging and planning to make deeper will not be capable of fixing. Hopefully, it won’t be too long and that option, a voter-approved, constitutional limit on state spending, will be put on the ballot for action.
Those in charge of the Nevada Legislature will probably not consider the dire straights of business as a reason for not pushing to expand the tax base and require the private sector to pay more so that their friends who cash those state government checks can be provided for, but this type of information should drive home the point that Nevada business cannot pay what they don’t have. The belief that there should be no end to the expansion of government payouts seems to be a concept that has no understanding or capability of being grasped by the champions of Big Government.
One hope for a meaningful solution to the drive for further expansion of Nevada government and even greater tax burdens will be the 2010 election and putting people in office who understand that fiscal responsibility would be a welcomed change. The notion needs to be dismissed that all it will take is a magic tax system which requires business to pay their fair share – and all our spending requirements can be satisfied.
I suppose if you want to grow even greater unemployment rates and further cripple (perhaps even destroy) the state’s economy entirely – tax increases and expansion of the public sector at the expense of the private sector which has to pay the bills – probably will be a quick way to do it. The level of legislatively approved spending has exceeded the ability for business enterprises to carry the weight and its showing in not only the unemployment rates, but also in the deficit that lawmakers had to backfill with more of their schemes during the 2010 special session. Still the majority party doesn’t get it…their perspective is just require more taxes to be paid and everything will be fine.
This demonstration clearly indicates that unless Nevada voters can be protected with a constitutional provision to limit state spending – the hole’s our legislators are digging and planning to make deeper will not be capable of fixing. Hopefully, it won’t be too long and that option, a voter-approved, constitutional limit on state spending, will be put on the ballot for action.
Nevada Agriculture Does Matter
Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
When University of Nevada, Reno officials determined that agriculture was not a priority for their future it struck a nerve that our state’s farm and ranch families find rather disturbing. In spite of UNR wishing to continue to be considered the state’s Land Grant University, agriculture is being kicked to the curb, while a façade is established to give the impression that some level of attention is still being paid to the re-interpreted mission of what a Land Grant Mission might mean. Some components will be incorporated into non-agricultural areas to languish under the supervisory control of those who very possibly would like to see an anti-agricultural agenda pursued, using whatever credibility they might muster to advance their cause against agricultural use of renewable natural resources.
In spite of their evaluation of Nevada’s agriculture by disregard and abandonment of the University, Nevada farmers and ranchers do matter and so do their business enterprises, generating farm-gate sales annual of over one-half billion and when factoring in wealth-generating capacity producing over $2 billion of economic activity. This steady and reliable economic sector not only provides for the well-being of rural Nevada communities but also sustain community values and character.
Much of the state’s natural resource base is managed through effective uses made by Nevada farmers and ranchers. Productively employing natural assets that would not be maximized without their contributions in the form of investment, time, energy and know-how these hard-working citizens are not inclined to accept the lack of value attributed to them by elitists, ivory-tower dwellers who have a motivation mostly driven by how much more they can garner from taxpayer wallets.
Given the University’s choice in selecting the priorities they have determined to build their future on, the best option available for Nevada farm and ranch families is to make it very clear that their needs and interests do matter and that if UNR wants to turn its back on those needs, others will be selected to fill the void.
Nevada Agricultural Research facilities and assets (especially the Main Station Farm) need to be protected for the benefit of the state’s agricultural sector. Through the establishment of a trust fund, which should be established outside of the control of UNR officials or the Nevada Board of Regents, proceeds from the sale of assets or from the acquisition of revenue from conservation easements – future financial support for agricultural research/education can be maintained.
Although UNR officials believe that farm and ranch families are insignificant enough to be disregarded as part of their future, we refuse to accept their rejection as relevant. As we continue to pursue the alternatives that are required of us, they may wish they had selected differently the priorities they believed to be important. Their scorn and disregard for the present and future needs of Nevada agriculture will provide the leverage necessary to raise the capacity that others will be looked to in meeting obligations that UNR has determined no longer their responsibility.
When University of Nevada, Reno officials determined that agriculture was not a priority for their future it struck a nerve that our state’s farm and ranch families find rather disturbing. In spite of UNR wishing to continue to be considered the state’s Land Grant University, agriculture is being kicked to the curb, while a façade is established to give the impression that some level of attention is still being paid to the re-interpreted mission of what a Land Grant Mission might mean. Some components will be incorporated into non-agricultural areas to languish under the supervisory control of those who very possibly would like to see an anti-agricultural agenda pursued, using whatever credibility they might muster to advance their cause against agricultural use of renewable natural resources.
In spite of their evaluation of Nevada’s agriculture by disregard and abandonment of the University, Nevada farmers and ranchers do matter and so do their business enterprises, generating farm-gate sales annual of over one-half billion and when factoring in wealth-generating capacity producing over $2 billion of economic activity. This steady and reliable economic sector not only provides for the well-being of rural Nevada communities but also sustain community values and character.
Much of the state’s natural resource base is managed through effective uses made by Nevada farmers and ranchers. Productively employing natural assets that would not be maximized without their contributions in the form of investment, time, energy and know-how these hard-working citizens are not inclined to accept the lack of value attributed to them by elitists, ivory-tower dwellers who have a motivation mostly driven by how much more they can garner from taxpayer wallets.
Given the University’s choice in selecting the priorities they have determined to build their future on, the best option available for Nevada farm and ranch families is to make it very clear that their needs and interests do matter and that if UNR wants to turn its back on those needs, others will be selected to fill the void.
Nevada Agricultural Research facilities and assets (especially the Main Station Farm) need to be protected for the benefit of the state’s agricultural sector. Through the establishment of a trust fund, which should be established outside of the control of UNR officials or the Nevada Board of Regents, proceeds from the sale of assets or from the acquisition of revenue from conservation easements – future financial support for agricultural research/education can be maintained.
Although UNR officials believe that farm and ranch families are insignificant enough to be disregarded as part of their future, we refuse to accept their rejection as relevant. As we continue to pursue the alternatives that are required of us, they may wish they had selected differently the priorities they believed to be important. Their scorn and disregard for the present and future needs of Nevada agriculture will provide the leverage necessary to raise the capacity that others will be looked to in meeting obligations that UNR has determined no longer their responsibility.
This Line Doesn’t Add Up
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
I get the part where the Democrats in Congress want to spin their message this way. The problem is that it doesn’t make any sense that the point of view connects the dots. The only way for this approach to “save money” or “reduce the deficit” is to have stuff that’s not being talked about in the bill that’s either cutting benefits, taxing more – and likely a large combination of both. This is the untold story which doesn’t get reported or presented in any of the bunk provided by the media or those who are advancing the cause of ramming and cramming this program for socialized, government take-over medicine on us.
It is also interesting to continue to receive these types of information pieces (this example provided to me as an e-mail message) which might have as much reality as anything being promoted by those who want to sell us their point of view that what’s being done is good for us…but, also still possibly having more exposed truth than those operating behind the closed doors want us to actually know!
Sen Harry Reid Hid this deep in the Health Care Bill
THIS IS A MUST READ AND FORWARD TO EVERYONE ON YOUR LIST. NEVER FORGET WHAT AN UNDERHANDED, CRIMINAL EVENT HAS OCCURRED HERE!
I get the part where the Democrats in Congress want to spin their message this way. The problem is that it doesn’t make any sense that the point of view connects the dots. The only way for this approach to “save money” or “reduce the deficit” is to have stuff that’s not being talked about in the bill that’s either cutting benefits, taxing more – and likely a large combination of both. This is the untold story which doesn’t get reported or presented in any of the bunk provided by the media or those who are advancing the cause of ramming and cramming this program for socialized, government take-over medicine on us.
It is also interesting to continue to receive these types of information pieces (this example provided to me as an e-mail message) which might have as much reality as anything being promoted by those who want to sell us their point of view that what’s being done is good for us…but, also still possibly having more exposed truth than those operating behind the closed doors want us to actually know!
Sen Harry Reid Hid this deep in the Health Care Bill
THIS IS A MUST READ AND FORWARD TO EVERYONE ON YOUR LIST. NEVER FORGET WHAT AN UNDERHANDED, CRIMINAL EVENT HAS OCCURRED HERE!
They never stop, they will keep trying to shove this down our throats until they get it through...please pass this on to everyone you know...
The impudent tyranny of Sen. Harry Reid Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is proving once again the maxim that darkness hates the light. Buried in his massive amendment to the Senate version of Obamacare is Reid's anti-democratic poison pill designed to prevent any future Congress from repealing the central feature of this monstrous legislation!
Beginning on page 1,000 of the measure, Section 3403 reads in part: ". it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."
In other words, if President Barack Obama signs this measure into law, no future Senate or House will be able to change a single word of Section 3403, regardless whether future Americans or their representatives in Congress wish otherwise!
Note that the subsection at issue here concerns the regulatory power of the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (IMAto "reduce the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending."
That is precisely the kind of open-ended grant of regulatory power that effectively establishes the IMAB as the ultimate arbiter of the cost, quality and quantity of health care to be made available to the American people. And Reid wants the decisions of this group of unelected federal bureaucrats to be untouchable for all time.
No wonder the majority leader tossed aside assurances that senators and the public would have at least 72 hours to study the text of the final Senate version of Obamacare before the critical vote on cloture. And no wonder Reid was so desperate to rush his amendment through the Senate, even scheduling the key tally on it at 1 a.m., while America slept.
True to form, Reid wanted to keep his Section 3403 poison pill secret for as long as possible, just as he negotiated his bribes for the votes of Senators Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Bernie Sanders of Vermont behind closed doors.
The final Orwellian touch in this subversion of democratic procedure is found in the ruling of the Reid-controlled Senate Parliamentarian that the anti-repeal provision is not a change in Senate rules, but rather of Senate "procedures." Why is that significant?
Because for 200 years, changes in the Senate's standing rules have required approval by two-thirds of those voting, or 67 votes rather than the 60 Reid's amendment received.
Reid has flouted two centuries of standing Senate rules to pass a measure in the dead of night that no senator has read, and part of which can never be changed. If this is not tyranny, then what is? It is also the reason why every incumbent Senator and Congressman, who did not read the bill before voting on it, should be voted out of office. You and I would be fired from our jobs for this type of job performance.
Jobs From Washington, D.C. On Their Way – Taxpayers Pay Up
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
The new campaign ads for re-election of Nevada’s senior U.S. Senator can now be updated to include the leadership he exhibited in shepherding the next greatest jobs bill through the legislative approval process. As we read by this account, we’re headed for good times and less unemployment…jobs, jobs and more jobs will be the result of Big Brother’s gracious spending and keen insights into how our economy works.
There may be some employers who could benefit from hiring they would likely have done anyway (because of need – not because of their burning desire to cash in on wonderful tax benefits they will receive by hiring). Tax cuts which result in greater opportunities for capital investments would probably have done more to spur economic improvement, but then we would have had to worry and be disgusted over the benefits which the wealthy may have gained. We all know that anyone making more than $250,000 per year should be taxed, punished and vilified to the maximum extent as we advance the class-warfare mantra that any form of success is only possible through the exploitation of others – only government and its wonderful blessings can be our hope.
Those in command (I maybe should have tried to make that less tyrannical, since they are moving us down the pathway of socialism for our own good) should be granted our appreciation and votes in November, which brings us back to the point of the new advertising campaigns we’ll soon be seeing…
We may also want to celebrate the job of April 15, 2010, tax day. Given the unbelievable debt load our elected representatives have burden us with, for our own good of course – since government spending is far more beneficial than anything that could be accomplished by our spending our own resources in the manner we would choose – this year’s tax bill will very likely be just the start to an increasing amount that will be coming down the road.
Here in Nevada, the state leaders who wish to further expand government’s role also are of the persuasion that taking care of those who receive government checks are more important than those who are required to pay into the state’s redistribution process. As we draw closer to the 2011 Nevada Legislative Session we will continue to hear more and more about how the present system of taxation simply doesn’t measure up in producing the revenue required for that growth and redistribution to operate. Pending doom and disaster awaits unless there is an expanded extraction method employed to acquire the private resources of those who haven’t paid their fair share.
As we continue to improve our appreciation for all that government can do for our collective good, making us all equally provided for through the redistribution plans and programs – those who once thought that their initiative, hard work and willingness to risk mattered…it does, just not in a way that you should benefit. Pay Up, Big Brother needs to do more wonderful things!
The new campaign ads for re-election of Nevada’s senior U.S. Senator can now be updated to include the leadership he exhibited in shepherding the next greatest jobs bill through the legislative approval process. As we read by this account, we’re headed for good times and less unemployment…jobs, jobs and more jobs will be the result of Big Brother’s gracious spending and keen insights into how our economy works.
There may be some employers who could benefit from hiring they would likely have done anyway (because of need – not because of their burning desire to cash in on wonderful tax benefits they will receive by hiring). Tax cuts which result in greater opportunities for capital investments would probably have done more to spur economic improvement, but then we would have had to worry and be disgusted over the benefits which the wealthy may have gained. We all know that anyone making more than $250,000 per year should be taxed, punished and vilified to the maximum extent as we advance the class-warfare mantra that any form of success is only possible through the exploitation of others – only government and its wonderful blessings can be our hope.
Those in command (I maybe should have tried to make that less tyrannical, since they are moving us down the pathway of socialism for our own good) should be granted our appreciation and votes in November, which brings us back to the point of the new advertising campaigns we’ll soon be seeing…
We may also want to celebrate the job of April 15, 2010, tax day. Given the unbelievable debt load our elected representatives have burden us with, for our own good of course – since government spending is far more beneficial than anything that could be accomplished by our spending our own resources in the manner we would choose – this year’s tax bill will very likely be just the start to an increasing amount that will be coming down the road.
Here in Nevada, the state leaders who wish to further expand government’s role also are of the persuasion that taking care of those who receive government checks are more important than those who are required to pay into the state’s redistribution process. As we draw closer to the 2011 Nevada Legislative Session we will continue to hear more and more about how the present system of taxation simply doesn’t measure up in producing the revenue required for that growth and redistribution to operate. Pending doom and disaster awaits unless there is an expanded extraction method employed to acquire the private resources of those who haven’t paid their fair share.
As we continue to improve our appreciation for all that government can do for our collective good, making us all equally provided for through the redistribution plans and programs – those who once thought that their initiative, hard work and willingness to risk mattered…it does, just not in a way that you should benefit. Pay Up, Big Brother needs to do more wonderful things!
So Much For Open And Honest Government
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
When getting what you want is more important than doing it properly – as pointed out here – perhaps it is time for the people of the country to step up and say enough is enough! Hopefully, Nevadans and the rest of the country will be miffed enough in November to use the clean-broom approach and use their ballots to make meaningful change in the state and federal bodies of representation. It is clear the majority party is more intent on its agenda of growing bigger government on us and forcing more intrusive controls into our lives.
When they can’t even talk their own into going along with their desires…what should that say about the place they are trying to take us?
When getting what you want is more important than doing it properly – as pointed out here – perhaps it is time for the people of the country to step up and say enough is enough! Hopefully, Nevadans and the rest of the country will be miffed enough in November to use the clean-broom approach and use their ballots to make meaningful change in the state and federal bodies of representation. It is clear the majority party is more intent on its agenda of growing bigger government on us and forcing more intrusive controls into our lives.
When they can’t even talk their own into going along with their desires…what should that say about the place they are trying to take us?
Has Nevada’s Land Grant Mission Been Accomplished?
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
This article and the focus on putting priorities in order got me thinking about the proposed actions by the University of Nevada, Reno to close the College of Agriculture, Biotechnology and Natural Resources. While the article implies that those in Nevada Higher Education Community didn’t like parts of what was said, they are trying to spin their actions in Reno as doing what the messenger (Bruce James) is promoting. By their proposed actions the UNR officials are saying that they’ve picked their priorities and agriculture isn’t on the list (although “UNR is working on creation of a unit name which appropriately identifies agriculture”). (This effort was described in the paperwork distributed by the UNR Provost in explaining how shutting down “the administrative unit known as the College of Agriculture, Biotechnology and Natural Resources as a separate college” still would meet the obligation of the Nevada Constitution and the Land Grant University legislation embodied in the Morrill Act.)
Operating with facades to give impressions of something -- without actually intending to fulfill the obligations of that something -- is a specialty of Nevada’s Higher Education System. When Senator Harry Reid directed $70 Million their way to establish a “world-class” research facility that required buying water rights and land in the Walker River Basin – to get around the federal law’s language which said the funds couldn’t be used to buy land or water – the University created a “virtual” research project, milked it for all it was worth and then turned the actual buy-outs over to the non-profit, government-chartered group who’s working to take the project to its completion. We can also point to the “heifer development” program that operated on the Main Station farm, keeping Holstein dairy animals grazing on the pastures to collect grant money that was linked to having the black and white animals involved with some type of “research” effort. Going through the motions and collecting the maximum amount of funds available for the charade might be considered for an advanced degree with administration officials presenting their own case studies as the examples.
In spite of the frustrations over what has been and what likely will become of the college formerly known as the College of Agriculture – the question remains on whether the time has gone by for Nevada agriculture to warrant educational and research considerations through the structure of what was our state’s Land Grant University? Using the criteria of “job-creation” for a measuring stick to evaluate merit, probably won’t get us to a point where agriculture will be given any consideration, although the plans for the future, describing what we’re going to get to continue to have include…”Continued research and education in range management, including land, plant ecology, forest and wildlife management, as well as alternative uses of range lands.” (Don’t think that “alternative uses of range lands” wasn’t noticed when the justification paperwork was circulated…I guess there aren’t enough jobs being filled in the area of anti-agricultural use of federally-managed lands, so UNR is going to specialize in the field of coming up with more.)
Other states still have a perspective that their Land Grant University has a purpose and are working to meet the continued obligations of that mission. There remains a pretty large reason for agricultural research and education, given a growing world population in need of food and fiber, produced by fewer and fewer producers. Environmental constraints and requirements for improvements of doing more with less also fit the classic definition of why agriculture should remain as a corner stone within the Land Grant University structure.
Just because UNR doesn’t want agriculture in its future doesn’t mean that the obligations have been achieved and no longer are relevant – it’s a case of UNR quitting, abandoning the mission that was part of the reason for establishing them in the first place… It’s the reason why every effort needs to be made to first defend keeping Nevada agriculturally-relevant programs in operation and secondly, holding the University accountable to either be a Land Grant University – meeting all the responsibilities – or go through the steps of giving back the funds that only Land Grant Universities deserve.
Sec: 8. Immediate organization and maintenance of state university. The Board of Regents shall, from the interest accruing from the first funds which come under their control, immediately organize and maintain the said Mining department in such manner as to make it most effective and useful, Provided, that all the proceeds of the public lands donated by Act of Congress approved July second AD. Eighteen hundred and sixty Two, for a college for the benefit of Agriculture[,] the Mechanics Arts, and including Military tactics shall be invested by the said Board of Regents in a separate fund to be appropriated exclusively for the benefit of the first named departments to the University as set forth in Section Four above; And the Legislature shall provide that if through neglect or any other contingency, any portion of the fund so set apart, shall be lost or misappropriated, the State of Nevada shall replace said amount so lost or misappropriated in said fund so that the principal of said fund shall remain forever undiminished[.] -- Nevada Constitution…
This article and the focus on putting priorities in order got me thinking about the proposed actions by the University of Nevada, Reno to close the College of Agriculture, Biotechnology and Natural Resources. While the article implies that those in Nevada Higher Education Community didn’t like parts of what was said, they are trying to spin their actions in Reno as doing what the messenger (Bruce James) is promoting. By their proposed actions the UNR officials are saying that they’ve picked their priorities and agriculture isn’t on the list (although “UNR is working on creation of a unit name which appropriately identifies agriculture”). (This effort was described in the paperwork distributed by the UNR Provost in explaining how shutting down “the administrative unit known as the College of Agriculture, Biotechnology and Natural Resources as a separate college” still would meet the obligation of the Nevada Constitution and the Land Grant University legislation embodied in the Morrill Act.)
Operating with facades to give impressions of something -- without actually intending to fulfill the obligations of that something -- is a specialty of Nevada’s Higher Education System. When Senator Harry Reid directed $70 Million their way to establish a “world-class” research facility that required buying water rights and land in the Walker River Basin – to get around the federal law’s language which said the funds couldn’t be used to buy land or water – the University created a “virtual” research project, milked it for all it was worth and then turned the actual buy-outs over to the non-profit, government-chartered group who’s working to take the project to its completion. We can also point to the “heifer development” program that operated on the Main Station farm, keeping Holstein dairy animals grazing on the pastures to collect grant money that was linked to having the black and white animals involved with some type of “research” effort. Going through the motions and collecting the maximum amount of funds available for the charade might be considered for an advanced degree with administration officials presenting their own case studies as the examples.
In spite of the frustrations over what has been and what likely will become of the college formerly known as the College of Agriculture – the question remains on whether the time has gone by for Nevada agriculture to warrant educational and research considerations through the structure of what was our state’s Land Grant University? Using the criteria of “job-creation” for a measuring stick to evaluate merit, probably won’t get us to a point where agriculture will be given any consideration, although the plans for the future, describing what we’re going to get to continue to have include…”Continued research and education in range management, including land, plant ecology, forest and wildlife management, as well as alternative uses of range lands.” (Don’t think that “alternative uses of range lands” wasn’t noticed when the justification paperwork was circulated…I guess there aren’t enough jobs being filled in the area of anti-agricultural use of federally-managed lands, so UNR is going to specialize in the field of coming up with more.)
Other states still have a perspective that their Land Grant University has a purpose and are working to meet the continued obligations of that mission. There remains a pretty large reason for agricultural research and education, given a growing world population in need of food and fiber, produced by fewer and fewer producers. Environmental constraints and requirements for improvements of doing more with less also fit the classic definition of why agriculture should remain as a corner stone within the Land Grant University structure.
Just because UNR doesn’t want agriculture in its future doesn’t mean that the obligations have been achieved and no longer are relevant – it’s a case of UNR quitting, abandoning the mission that was part of the reason for establishing them in the first place… It’s the reason why every effort needs to be made to first defend keeping Nevada agriculturally-relevant programs in operation and secondly, holding the University accountable to either be a Land Grant University – meeting all the responsibilities – or go through the steps of giving back the funds that only Land Grant Universities deserve.
Who Should Be The “Broader” Part Of The Tax Base?
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
The discussions at the Nevada Vision Stakeholders group meeting this past Friday, broached the topic of the need for Nevada requiring a broader tax base. This theme will be a constant thread that will be loudly proclaimed between now and the end of the 2011 Nevada Legislative Session. We can expect the voices of mining and gaming advocating that other business enterprises join them in the effort to satisfy the majority party’s no-limit thirst for tax dollars.
Those who spend and those who receive their checks from government’s checkbook are convinced that the private sector exist in order to pay taxes and provide whatever is earned for the public good. Ultimately this is the reason that the Nevada Vision Stakeholders were created – come up with the need for greater levels of spending…then legislators will have the cover they seek as the excuse to pursue more taxes from more places. This of course is something that we’re not supposed to consider as a pre-determined outcome, let’s just be surprised if that’s how it turns out…
As was pointed out in this piece, Nevada legislators having more money to spend has only resulted in spending all of what was available and then needing to raise taxes to spend more. Our only real protection from this spend, spend – tax increase – spend, spend cycle is to put in place a solid prevention measure that causes state spending to be constrained by the vote of the people. If there would have been a spending limitation system in place, there would have been increases in spending as required to meet inflation and growth requirements. What would not have happened is allowing the spenders in charge of the Nevada Legislature from exceeding the ability of the private sector to produce enough tax revenue to meet their spending excesses. This policy paper not only emphasizes this reality, but also graphically demonstrates the way legislators have escalated their spending binge to ever new levels, regardless of the economic downturn that everyone else has had to endure.
The business community is the primary targets for the state’s Democrats, thinking that it’s always easier to portray that sector as being flush with cash that ought to be going to cover the costs deemed appropriate for government spending. This line of reasoning was clearly put on display during the 2010 Special Legislative Session where even a term-limited Republican Senator thought it acceptable to lecture on how business needs to be less inclined to seek keeping their resources for business operations and employment of their employees. The public sector is far more important than those who earn a living in the private sector…so pay up. “No” is not a viable option, according to our elected “leaders” – it shouldn’t be a point of view when it comes to tax increases and it shouldn’t be a perspective when it comes to spending increases. Just like the instructions on the shampoo bottle – spend, tax…repeat steps.
Would the same approach be acceptable if the taxes were being levied against individual citizens? Would the demands be as blatant if those writing out the checks were individual voters, paying in a personal way (instead of the somewhat hidden manner of sales tax assessments or the hidden income tax assessed on employee’s payrolls)? The same class warfare, populist appeal wouldn’t work if the target for the never-ending tax requirements were individuals.
That’s exactly the reason for the need to put in place a spending constraint measure to keep state government spending from increasing at the pace it has been sky-rocketing higher it also is the reason why the broader tax base being sought should come in the form of individuals paying for the costs of Nevada government. First, we would accomplish the fundamental requirement for keeping state spending within the boundaries of responsibility and because of individual voter taxpayers being engaged directly, accountability would also become reality.
The discussions at the Nevada Vision Stakeholders group meeting this past Friday, broached the topic of the need for Nevada requiring a broader tax base. This theme will be a constant thread that will be loudly proclaimed between now and the end of the 2011 Nevada Legislative Session. We can expect the voices of mining and gaming advocating that other business enterprises join them in the effort to satisfy the majority party’s no-limit thirst for tax dollars.
Those who spend and those who receive their checks from government’s checkbook are convinced that the private sector exist in order to pay taxes and provide whatever is earned for the public good. Ultimately this is the reason that the Nevada Vision Stakeholders were created – come up with the need for greater levels of spending…then legislators will have the cover they seek as the excuse to pursue more taxes from more places. This of course is something that we’re not supposed to consider as a pre-determined outcome, let’s just be surprised if that’s how it turns out…
As was pointed out in this piece, Nevada legislators having more money to spend has only resulted in spending all of what was available and then needing to raise taxes to spend more. Our only real protection from this spend, spend – tax increase – spend, spend cycle is to put in place a solid prevention measure that causes state spending to be constrained by the vote of the people. If there would have been a spending limitation system in place, there would have been increases in spending as required to meet inflation and growth requirements. What would not have happened is allowing the spenders in charge of the Nevada Legislature from exceeding the ability of the private sector to produce enough tax revenue to meet their spending excesses. This policy paper not only emphasizes this reality, but also graphically demonstrates the way legislators have escalated their spending binge to ever new levels, regardless of the economic downturn that everyone else has had to endure.
The business community is the primary targets for the state’s Democrats, thinking that it’s always easier to portray that sector as being flush with cash that ought to be going to cover the costs deemed appropriate for government spending. This line of reasoning was clearly put on display during the 2010 Special Legislative Session where even a term-limited Republican Senator thought it acceptable to lecture on how business needs to be less inclined to seek keeping their resources for business operations and employment of their employees. The public sector is far more important than those who earn a living in the private sector…so pay up. “No” is not a viable option, according to our elected “leaders” – it shouldn’t be a point of view when it comes to tax increases and it shouldn’t be a perspective when it comes to spending increases. Just like the instructions on the shampoo bottle – spend, tax…repeat steps.
Would the same approach be acceptable if the taxes were being levied against individual citizens? Would the demands be as blatant if those writing out the checks were individual voters, paying in a personal way (instead of the somewhat hidden manner of sales tax assessments or the hidden income tax assessed on employee’s payrolls)? The same class warfare, populist appeal wouldn’t work if the target for the never-ending tax requirements were individuals.
That’s exactly the reason for the need to put in place a spending constraint measure to keep state government spending from increasing at the pace it has been sky-rocketing higher it also is the reason why the broader tax base being sought should come in the form of individuals paying for the costs of Nevada government. First, we would accomplish the fundamental requirement for keeping state spending within the boundaries of responsibility and because of individual voter taxpayers being engaged directly, accountability would also become reality.
The Downside Of The Plan To Make A Vertical Cut To Get Rid Of Agriculture
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
Without any public disclosure of the evidence that an across the board approach to budget cuts would be more detrimental, the determination has been made to go forward with a proposal for doing away with the College of Agriculture and a couple of Departments contained in the dismantled college. We’re told that prior to the start of the Special Legislative Session each College submitted plans for an eight (8) percent cut – far more than the required $11 Million target. It has also been noted that significant savings would be available by University personnel following the same approach of salary savings through work furloughs.
Instead of other options, the idea being forwarded through the decision system also includes merging other agricultural programs into parts of the UNR campus where their future will be increasingly diminished and neutralized to meaningless nothingness (with the outcome of the anti-agricultural agendas being enhanced in the process). The people in charge of making the decision have decided to select the things that matter, keep those things going and get rid of the College of Agriculture.
There will be every effort made by University officials to give the impression that although the proposed plan does away with the College of Agriculture, there is enough of a façade left to give an impression that the actions are not about completely turning their back on agriculture. A handout from the Provost offers insight into this thinking, stating that “UNR is working on creation of a unit name which appropriately identifies agriculture.” (This was offered in the area that was attempting to justify the action in light of the state’s constitutional requirements for having a College of Agriculture…) The justification also tweaks the language of Constitution to further advance the idea that today’s University of Nevada, Land Grant University doesn’t have to actually comply with was written once upon a time ago.
One of the problems in making the determined selection of abandoning a segment of the population, as UNR is doing with agricultural interests, is that the abandonment will work both ways. Where and why should rural Nevada care about the “let’s pretend” Land Grant University that once was celebrated for its mission and purpose. There simply will be no reason to care about whether UNR has a future or not – taking the same approach that the University is taking toward agriculture through its actions.
It will be difficult to find the resources for building a working relationship with institutions outside of the state who do care about agriculture in an educational and applied research sense. This is one of the reasons for acquiring a trust system which would be financed by the sale of the University of Nevada’s agricultural research assets. Preventing the plunder of these assets for non-agricultural benefit by University officials will also provide the mechanics for obtaining financial resources that can be used in courting non-University of Nevada support to advance the cause of Nevada farmers and ranchers. Agricultural supporters need to remember that their gifts and other support for UNR should be redirected to institutions which do support agricultural education and research.
The UNR budget include a line item for the agricultural experiment station system, these funds should also be considered as being open for use by other institutions (not necessarily Nevada based) for furtherance of agricultural research. Given UNR’s desire to not be bothered with agricultural needs, those who might be interested in filling this vacuum should be considered as viable solutions. There may not be a working model that foresees this approach, but the Morrill Act didn’t envision that a Land Grant University would reject having a College of Agriculture for the expediency of being able to cash in agricultural research property for the good of its liberal arts pursuits.
Without any public disclosure of the evidence that an across the board approach to budget cuts would be more detrimental, the determination has been made to go forward with a proposal for doing away with the College of Agriculture and a couple of Departments contained in the dismantled college. We’re told that prior to the start of the Special Legislative Session each College submitted plans for an eight (8) percent cut – far more than the required $11 Million target. It has also been noted that significant savings would be available by University personnel following the same approach of salary savings through work furloughs.
Instead of other options, the idea being forwarded through the decision system also includes merging other agricultural programs into parts of the UNR campus where their future will be increasingly diminished and neutralized to meaningless nothingness (with the outcome of the anti-agricultural agendas being enhanced in the process). The people in charge of making the decision have decided to select the things that matter, keep those things going and get rid of the College of Agriculture.
There will be every effort made by University officials to give the impression that although the proposed plan does away with the College of Agriculture, there is enough of a façade left to give an impression that the actions are not about completely turning their back on agriculture. A handout from the Provost offers insight into this thinking, stating that “UNR is working on creation of a unit name which appropriately identifies agriculture.” (This was offered in the area that was attempting to justify the action in light of the state’s constitutional requirements for having a College of Agriculture…) The justification also tweaks the language of Constitution to further advance the idea that today’s University of Nevada, Land Grant University doesn’t have to actually comply with was written once upon a time ago.
One of the problems in making the determined selection of abandoning a segment of the population, as UNR is doing with agricultural interests, is that the abandonment will work both ways. Where and why should rural Nevada care about the “let’s pretend” Land Grant University that once was celebrated for its mission and purpose. There simply will be no reason to care about whether UNR has a future or not – taking the same approach that the University is taking toward agriculture through its actions.
It will be difficult to find the resources for building a working relationship with institutions outside of the state who do care about agriculture in an educational and applied research sense. This is one of the reasons for acquiring a trust system which would be financed by the sale of the University of Nevada’s agricultural research assets. Preventing the plunder of these assets for non-agricultural benefit by University officials will also provide the mechanics for obtaining financial resources that can be used in courting non-University of Nevada support to advance the cause of Nevada farmers and ranchers. Agricultural supporters need to remember that their gifts and other support for UNR should be redirected to institutions which do support agricultural education and research.
The UNR budget include a line item for the agricultural experiment station system, these funds should also be considered as being open for use by other institutions (not necessarily Nevada based) for furtherance of agricultural research. Given UNR’s desire to not be bothered with agricultural needs, those who might be interested in filling this vacuum should be considered as viable solutions. There may not be a working model that foresees this approach, but the Morrill Act didn’t envision that a Land Grant University would reject having a College of Agriculture for the expediency of being able to cash in agricultural research property for the good of its liberal arts pursuits.
Future For Nevada Agriculture Education And Research What Agriculture Will Make Of It
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
At the recent meeting of the College of Agriculture Advisory Committee, the provost of the University of Nevada, Reno wanted to give those present assurance that the University was not turning its back on the state’s farmers and ranchers. The moves working their way to the closure of the College of Agriculture, Biotechnology and Natural Resources (CABNR) and shutting down two additional departments that have been part of the College were portrayed as being a painful necessity in order for other, more important elements of UNR’s mission, to come out of the downturn in a better position to advance. Dumping agriculture isn’t something that should be taken personally, it’s just an administration decision that had to be carried out for the good of the whole…gaining roughly $4.2 Million in savings from the necessary $11 Million that needs to be cut.
Nevada agriculture can decide that they are victims of this betrayal of the University’s Land Grant mission…there have been any number of examples where the University system and leaders/decision makers have selected the options which resulted in Nevada agriculture being harmed. As is the case with the current circumstances the effort is made to portray the action as not being a rejection of the needs of agricultural producers or responsibilities of the institution. As is the case with the current situation the reality of what University officials have done cuts into the potential of what Nevada agriculture could be.
It comes down to the numbers, UNR can pretend to be a Land Grant University, cloaking the lack of substance with make-believe offerings to agricultural education and research – there’s not enough people who will care to make a stink which will last beyond the initial blow-up…weather the storm, blame the cuts on necessity, cite a commitment that doesn’t need to be carried through with any better than past performance has required, cash in on the lucrative property values of the 1,000 acre Main Station farm in Reno…
Anyone expecting the Nevada University Board Of Regents to stand in the way of the pre-ordained decision need to remember the past support given to the state’s agriculture. Can’t remember when that happened? Well, neither can anyone else…
Choice Of Responses:
Instead of standing by and merely playing the victim role there can be responses that works to implement an action line of attack.
There are probably only a couple of approaches for where to go from here. One option will be to tolerate the situation and attempt to work with UNR officials to make the most of the situation. Perhaps there might be some semblance of a potential arrangement where limited needs can be met by working cooperatively and remaining engaged with the decision-makers for compromised operations to give some assistance to specific and pre-identified approaches.
The other alternative is to go forward without concern for what might happen, understanding that the University isn’t going to be worthwhile for agricultural needs, regardless of what is kept on life support and knowing that further erosion will continue until there is barely a memory of what once was a legitimate Land Grant University in Nevada that did serve the needs of agricultural producers. This approach will continue to advance the cause of preventing the experiment station assets from being sold off for the benefit of UNR. This approach will also need Nevada Legislative action to establish meaningful protection to keep the proceeds from the impending sales in a trust to be used for legitimate agricultural programs. Further, there should be the measures to find ways of decertifying the University as a Land Grant University, requiring the repayment of money’s used to start and support the University of Nevada.
It really doesn’t matter which course Nevada agriculture determines as being the choice of these options…in the end, the lack of meaningful services from the University for agricultural production will be the same.
At the recent meeting of the College of Agriculture Advisory Committee, the provost of the University of Nevada, Reno wanted to give those present assurance that the University was not turning its back on the state’s farmers and ranchers. The moves working their way to the closure of the College of Agriculture, Biotechnology and Natural Resources (CABNR) and shutting down two additional departments that have been part of the College were portrayed as being a painful necessity in order for other, more important elements of UNR’s mission, to come out of the downturn in a better position to advance. Dumping agriculture isn’t something that should be taken personally, it’s just an administration decision that had to be carried out for the good of the whole…gaining roughly $4.2 Million in savings from the necessary $11 Million that needs to be cut.
Nevada agriculture can decide that they are victims of this betrayal of the University’s Land Grant mission…there have been any number of examples where the University system and leaders/decision makers have selected the options which resulted in Nevada agriculture being harmed. As is the case with the current circumstances the effort is made to portray the action as not being a rejection of the needs of agricultural producers or responsibilities of the institution. As is the case with the current situation the reality of what University officials have done cuts into the potential of what Nevada agriculture could be.
It comes down to the numbers, UNR can pretend to be a Land Grant University, cloaking the lack of substance with make-believe offerings to agricultural education and research – there’s not enough people who will care to make a stink which will last beyond the initial blow-up…weather the storm, blame the cuts on necessity, cite a commitment that doesn’t need to be carried through with any better than past performance has required, cash in on the lucrative property values of the 1,000 acre Main Station farm in Reno…
Anyone expecting the Nevada University Board Of Regents to stand in the way of the pre-ordained decision need to remember the past support given to the state’s agriculture. Can’t remember when that happened? Well, neither can anyone else…
Choice Of Responses:
Instead of standing by and merely playing the victim role there can be responses that works to implement an action line of attack.
There are probably only a couple of approaches for where to go from here. One option will be to tolerate the situation and attempt to work with UNR officials to make the most of the situation. Perhaps there might be some semblance of a potential arrangement where limited needs can be met by working cooperatively and remaining engaged with the decision-makers for compromised operations to give some assistance to specific and pre-identified approaches.
The other alternative is to go forward without concern for what might happen, understanding that the University isn’t going to be worthwhile for agricultural needs, regardless of what is kept on life support and knowing that further erosion will continue until there is barely a memory of what once was a legitimate Land Grant University in Nevada that did serve the needs of agricultural producers. This approach will continue to advance the cause of preventing the experiment station assets from being sold off for the benefit of UNR. This approach will also need Nevada Legislative action to establish meaningful protection to keep the proceeds from the impending sales in a trust to be used for legitimate agricultural programs. Further, there should be the measures to find ways of decertifying the University as a Land Grant University, requiring the repayment of money’s used to start and support the University of Nevada.
It really doesn’t matter which course Nevada agriculture determines as being the choice of these options…in the end, the lack of meaningful services from the University for agricultural production will be the same.
Another Great Reason On Why State Taxes Should Be More
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
With the kickoff of the 2010 Census process we are bombarded by the message that completing the required paperwork of counting ourselves is an act for the good of Nevada – how else are we going to get our fair share of the money coming from Washington, D.C.? It is our civic responsibility to do our part in “bringing home the bacon”!
Along these same lines, we’re going to really start bearing down more in the payment of additional taxes at a greater level, because as this study points out, we’re not getting all that we should from the federal treasury. Again, we need to pay up so Nevada’s per-capita take from the federal trough can be up there where it should be – along with the other states who get more handouts from Uncle Sam.
The most troubling theme of these inter-related points is the blazon and blatant belief that individuals deserve (to the extent of a birthright) to get their share of government dollars.
Okay, let’s give this some focused thought… The government gets its money from where? Would it be a logical stretch to consider the idea that government should not get as much money and permit those who have earned the money to keep their own?
Of course that would mean a high number of those getting the money from the government would need to earn the money they get, as opposed to having government’s generosity giving them somebody else’s money. How could the champions of bigger government survive such a shift in direction? It’s what keeps them getting re-elected!
It is also what keeps government growing and has brought us to the point of needing a special Nevada Legislative session to save the essential programs of buying people dentures and adult diapers. Yep, there’s gonna need to be tax increases (at least on the other guys) so we can have the financial capacity in state government’s spending arsenal to collect even more from the federal treasury (which will then require more federal taxes to cover the checks Uncle Sam is going to be writing for Nevada)… For some people this passes for something that makes sense?
Hopefully, it won’t be a majority of those who vote in November…
With the kickoff of the 2010 Census process we are bombarded by the message that completing the required paperwork of counting ourselves is an act for the good of Nevada – how else are we going to get our fair share of the money coming from Washington, D.C.? It is our civic responsibility to do our part in “bringing home the bacon”!
Along these same lines, we’re going to really start bearing down more in the payment of additional taxes at a greater level, because as this study points out, we’re not getting all that we should from the federal treasury. Again, we need to pay up so Nevada’s per-capita take from the federal trough can be up there where it should be – along with the other states who get more handouts from Uncle Sam.
The most troubling theme of these inter-related points is the blazon and blatant belief that individuals deserve (to the extent of a birthright) to get their share of government dollars.
Okay, let’s give this some focused thought… The government gets its money from where? Would it be a logical stretch to consider the idea that government should not get as much money and permit those who have earned the money to keep their own?
Of course that would mean a high number of those getting the money from the government would need to earn the money they get, as opposed to having government’s generosity giving them somebody else’s money. How could the champions of bigger government survive such a shift in direction? It’s what keeps them getting re-elected!
It is also what keeps government growing and has brought us to the point of needing a special Nevada Legislative session to save the essential programs of buying people dentures and adult diapers. Yep, there’s gonna need to be tax increases (at least on the other guys) so we can have the financial capacity in state government’s spending arsenal to collect even more from the federal treasury (which will then require more federal taxes to cover the checks Uncle Sam is going to be writing for Nevada)… For some people this passes for something that makes sense?
Hopefully, it won’t be a majority of those who vote in November…