In 2011, Democrats came into the session planning to propose a tax increase. But with their two leaders intending to run for Congress and with courage taking its biennial 120-day holiday from the capital, they hid the ball until it was too late.
So a bold, even visionary plan suffocated in the legislative womb, stillborn. A wasted opportunity for a real discussion about the most important issue confronting Nevada, as it has been for the last quarter-century: How should the state tax and spend in an economy that can no longer rely on a gaming industry whose leaders are filled with wanderlust, now salivating over China and the Internet.
As Session ’13 looms, I have a familiar and yet distressing sense of déjà vu.
Democrats talking about doing big things. Democrats presenting their priorities for education. Democrats telling us to be patient as they sort through the funding questions.
I don’t know about you, folks, but after 25 years of tax studies that reach the same conclusion (expand the base) and rhetoric from legislators (we need more revenue), my patience is at an end. My Proustian wistfulness is sparked by the Democratic leadership this week proposing education programs such as pre-kindergarten intervention, all-day-kindergarten and more class-size reduction. Great ideas.
And the funding mechanisms for what could cost tens or hundreds of millions of dollars? Hello, darkness, my old friend.
"It all depends on where we end up," Senate Majority Leader Mo Denis told the Review-Journal. "We will look at the revenue side and how to pay for it."
Sound familiar? That “just give us time to examine the budget” stiffarm was repeated obnoxiously two years ago by Democratic lawmakers who knew – yes, knew – that they were way short of the money they needed for what they intended to do.
And, as the Sun’s David McGrath Schwartz reported, the fear of telling the truth is a contagion again. I would like to say that the Democrats, by providing ideas even without funding mechanisms, are better than the Just Say No Caucus of the Nevada Policy Research Institute and its acolytes. But they are worse.
At least NPRI and their GOP legislative echoes have the courage of their convictions, shallow though they may be. Yes, it’s easier to say “no” or change the subject to school choice or vouchers or accountability. They are full of buzzwords and anti-tax fury, but their policy is to do nothing. I expect little from them, and they usually deliver.
But by their silence on funding, the Democrats in Carson City play into the hands of Gov. Brian Sandoval, who will say “no new taxes” with a smile next week, and legislative Republicans, who would like nothing better than to pummel Democrats on taxes to try to take control of the Legislature next cycle. Instead, the Democrats should say to the governor and his amen chorus across the courtyard: Bring it on.
Speaker Marilyn Kirkpatrick and Denis are two thoughtful, well-intentioned lawmakers who have insisted they will begin the tax structure discussions the first week of Session ’13, which commences Feb. 4. But the time for talk is long past.
Here’s what they should do: Put the 2011 plan for enacting the margins tax and phasing out the payroll tax back out there on Day 1 – Denis and Kirkpatrick as the original co-sponsors. Let the Republicans attack it; the Democrats should relish the defense. And they should try to generate what ex-state Sen. Sheila Leslie told me on “Ralston Reports” is what's necessary: A public uprising over how the state funds services and who it does not extract money from.
Then we can have the debate that has long been put off in Nevada: Do we need a business tax? How much money should go into education? How do we stabilize our economy, or do we even need to?
And that's not all -- the Democrats must cede some of the high ground. There are two sides to this discussion, even if the binary positions of too many – tax or not to tax – trivialize the issue.
What reforms are needed? What role does collective bargaining play in all of this? Should social promotion be ended once and for all
Is the Gang of 63 so craven that it doesn’t want to have that colloquy? Please don’t answer that question.
I know who’s not afraid: Kirkpatrick. And she will have a chance to frame the debate before the session begins when she delivers the rebuttal to Sandoval’s State of the State speech next Wednesday.
It was clear to me when I interviewed her this week that Kirkpatrick is considering taxes, including a trigger mechanism (remember those from days of yore?) to only let them increase under certain conditions. And Denis also was much more forthright about taxes being potentially necessary than Steven Horsford and John Oceguera, 2011’s leaders, ever were.
Neither Kirkpatrick nor Denis is running for anything else (at least not right now, I hope), so they have more political freedom to show they are willing to do more than just talk and play games with the policy, as has happened every session for the last 25 years.
As usual, before the session starts, I have hope (As I have said, the definition of insanity considering what past results have been.). And I expect Sandoval to veto whatever plan the Democrats construct to provide the blueprint for their vision. Fine.
Isn’t it better to have legislated and lost than never to have legislated at all?
In 2011, Democrats came into the session planning to propose a tax increase. But with their two leaders intending to run for Congress and with courage taking its biennial 120-day holiday from the capital, they hid the ball until it was too late.
So a bold, even visionary plan suffocated in the legislative womb, stillborn. A wasted opportunity for a real discussion about the most important issue confronting Nevada, as it has been for the last quarter-century: How should the state tax and spend in an economy that can no longer rely on a gaming industry whose leaders are filled with wanderlust, now salivating over China and the Internet.
As Session ’13 looms, I have a familiar and yet distressing sense of déjà vu.
Democrats talking about doing big things. Democrats presenting their priorities for education. Democrats telling us to be patient as they sort through the funding questions.
I don’t know about you, folks, but after 25 years of tax studies that reach the same conclusion (expand the base) and rhetoric from legislators (we need more revenue), my patience is at an end. My Proustian wistfulness is sparked by the Democratic leadership this week proposing education programs such as pre-kindergarten intervention, all-day-kindergarten and more class-size reduction. Great ideas.
And the funding mechanisms for what could cost tens or hundreds of millions of dollars? Hello, darkness, my old friend.
"It all depends on where we end up," Senate Majority Leader Mo Denis told the Review-Journal. "We will look at the revenue side and how to pay for it."
Sound familiar? That “just give us time to examine the budget” stiffarm was repeated obnoxiously two years ago by Democratic lawmakers who knew – yes, knew – that they were way short of the money they needed for what they intended to do.
And, as the Sun’s David McGrath Schwartz reported, the fear of telling the truth is a contagion again. I would like to say that the Democrats, by providing ideas even without funding mechanisms, are better than the Just Say No Caucus of the Nevada Policy Research Institute and its acolytes. But they are worse.
At least NPRI and their GOP legislative echoes have the courage of their convictions, shallow though they may be. Yes, it’s easier to say “no” or change the subject to school choice or vouchers or accountability. They are full of buzzwords and anti-tax fury, but their policy is to do nothing. I expect little from them, and they usually deliver.
But by their silence on funding, the Democrats in Carson City play into the hands of Gov. Brian Sandoval, who will say “no new taxes” with a smile next week, and legislative Republicans, who would like nothing better than to pummel Democrats on taxes to try to take control of the Legislature next cycle. Instead, the Democrats should say to the governor and his amen chorus across the courtyard: Bring it on.
Speaker Marilyn Kirkpatrick and Denis are two thoughtful, well-intentioned lawmakers who have insisted they will begin the tax structure discussions the first week of Session ’13, which commences Feb. 4. But the time for talk is long past.
Here’s what they should do: Put the 2011 plan for enacting the margins tax and phasing out the payroll tax back out there on Day 1 – Denis and Kirkpatrick as the original co-sponsors. Let the Republicans attack it; the Democrats should relish the defense. And they should try to generate what ex-state Sen. Sheila Leslie told me on “Ralston Reports” is what's necessary: A public uprising over how the state funds services and who it does not extract money from.
Then we can have the debate that has long been put off in Nevada: Do we need a business tax? How much money should go into education? How do we stabilize our economy, or do we even need to?
And that's not all -- the Democrats must cede some of the high ground. There are two sides to this discussion, even if the binary positions of too many – tax or not to tax – trivialize the issue.
What reforms are needed? What role does collective bargaining play in all of this? Should social promotion be ended once and for all
Is the Gang of 63 so craven that it doesn’t want to have that colloquy? Please don’t answer that question.
I know who’s not afraid: Kirkpatrick. And she will have a chance to frame the debate before the session begins when she delivers the rebuttal to Sandoval’s State of the State speech next Wednesday.
It was clear to me when I interviewed her this week that Kirkpatrick is considering taxes, including a trigger mechanism (remember those from days of yore?) to only let them increase under certain conditions. And Denis also was much more forthright about taxes being potentially necessary than Steven Horsford and John Oceguera, 2011’s leaders, ever were.
Neither Kirkpatrick nor Denis is running for anything else (at least not right now, I hope), so they have more political freedom to show they are willing to do more than just talk and play games with the policy, as has happened every session for the last 25 years.
As usual, before the session starts, I have hope (As I have said, the definition of insanity considering what past results have been.). And I expect Sandoval to veto whatever plan the Democrats construct to provide the blueprint for their vision. Fine.
Isn’t it better to have legislated and lost than never to have legislated at all?
Comments: