In any social state such as Nevada, we share the wealth and should share the burdens. The state distributes, allocates and appropriates our wealth (taxes) to local government and service agencies. It’s only rational that as our collective wealth dwindles, our individual burden of creating new revenue increases. That sounds logical to everyone except Gov. Jim Gibbons.
Our obstinate Republican governor made a promise two years ago that he would never raise our taxes. His pig-headedness could ruin the state’s economy, educational system, progress in mental health and set our progress back 20 years.
In his State of the State address, he said he wouldn’t increase taxes on corporations that are currently showing a profit. Why not? If my real estate investments increase, I pay more property taxes. Why should profitable corporations be any different?
Speaking of property taxes, Gibbons wants to steal 4 percent of local government’s property tax for his general fund, creating a short fall of $12 million for Washoe County and $66 million for Clark County. On top of that, he proposes to charge the counties $29 million for the privilege of collecting the tax. It sounds like the old protection racket the gang’s used in my New Jersey neighborhood back in the ‘30s.
Since most of the local property taxes are spent on regional government, redevelopment districts and education, be prepared for an increase in your property tax. However, the property taxes on gaming properties will be decreased because the value for their property is assessed, in part, on their revenue. Since most gaming properties are in redevelopment districts, everyone living outside of those districts will have to pay even more property tax to subsidize the gamers and redevelopment districts. The concept of a state-wide property tax has been considered for years and is supported by Sen. Bill Raggio. It has always been mentioned as an alternative to a state income tax. Siphoning 4 percent of local property tax is the first major step in accomplishing that Republican goal.
Gibbons is also proposing a 5 percent reduction on mental health services. Evidently, he hasn’t learned from another Republican, Ronald Reagan. Reagan refused to increase taxes and almost eliminated all the mental health programs and facilities in California, forcing the mentally ill to live on the streets. Taxpayers have spent millions since then, providing services for the homeless, thanks to Reagan.
The new budget proposes the elimination of Medicaid insurance to low-income pregnant mothers. On the surface that sounds like a good choice, for conservatives that is. Some might say, why not? After all, most of the women are probably not married, illegal immigrants, already on welfare programs or just plain poor. However, the mother should not be the main concern. The baby should be the top priority to all of us. By not providing a healthy prenatal environment for the newborn, we could be creating a greater expense for child care after the baby is born.
The governors proposed 6 percent pay decrease for state workers and teachers has caused the most controversy. He said he will not raise taxes on businesses or people already struggling through these times. No doubt, he thinks teachers and state employees are not struggling.
The decrease could be considered a discriminatory flat tax. He is taxing state workers and teachers a flat 6 percent tax on their unadjusted gross income, similar to a flat tax system. But he is not suggesting a flat state income tax on anyone in the private sector. Or is he?
The anticipated response from state workers will be, why tax us? They will argue that everyone should pay a 6 percent flat tax giving the Legislature an open door leading to the long-dreaded, but anticipated, state income tax.
Gibbons has a habit of leading us to believe teachers are state employees; they are not. Teachers have a negotiated and signed contract with their local county school districts, not the state. They contribute to the state’s pension fund along with firefighters and police officers. That doesn’t qualify them to be called state employees.
The local school districts submit their budget requests, including negotiated teacher salaries, to the state. The Legislature, in turn, allocates and appropriates revenue to the school district. If Gibbons cuts the allocation by 6 percent and vetoes any attempt to block it, the districts have to find their own sources of revenue to meet their contractual obligation to pay the teachers. And that usually means an increase in taxes.
So, what’s in a promise? Technically, Gibbons can say he kept his promise and “he” didn’t raise taxes. Instead, he passed the buck and will blame the necessitated local tax increases on the Legislature, local government and regional school districts, making his kept promise arrogant, egotistical and worthless.
Before we impose a flat tax on teachers and cut services to our grade schools, universities and other local services, we should consider a slight increase in some existing taxes and new sources of revenue such as a state-wide room tax and lottery for education. If we are going to share the wealth in good times, we should all share the financial burden in hard times.
Tags: education system, educators, Jim Gibbons, Nevada, state budget, Teachers, washoe county school district, wcsd
