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.
Posted by Doug Busselman at 8/14/2010 8:05 AM 
Categories: Nevada Budget
Tags: Nevada Budget State Spending Taxes 2010 Election Government
Categories: Nevada Budget
Tags: Nevada Budget State Spending Taxes 2010 Election Government
Once again, Doug, your rant against taxes has reached the heights of absurdity. Where were you when all of the city and county governments in Nevada were rubber stamping huuuuge subdivisions. No modifications to alleviate the extreme impacts and the rapid expansion of the population at the same time the state's biggest employer, gaming was seeing its fortunes fading, and diversification lagging way behind. Now we have a lot of people here, many of them now unemployed, but they still require services which bankrupt cities and counties can't provide. So, what's your simple solution Doug? Cut taxes? Not realistic. Of course, there is always some pork in government spending, and those programs need to be cut. However, railing against all taxes as evil is absurd. A little pragmatism, Doug, please.
Reply to this
For the record, this blog wasn't started until December 15, 2008, although Nevada Farm Bureau's policy against tax increases has been the position developed and adopted by voting members for much longer than that. (The perspective of limiting government growth, reducing government spending and not increasing taxes has been consistent throughout the time this blog has been in operations.)
It also should be noted that Nevada already ranks 23rd of all states in the per-capita revenue paid to state and local governments http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=412
As to increasing taxes during economic recessions (as opposed to government spending reductions to live within the resources available) -- how has that been working out?
The idea of enhancing the profitability of the private sector by getting government's tax burden out of our wallets has been successful in the past. Government taxing and spending us deeper into the hole hasn't, won't and can't bring about prosperity -- only more hardship and dependency of greater government.
Reply to this