MUTH’S TRUTHS

The amendment to SB 154 (see above) - which enables Washoe County to put together a package of tax hikes and place them on the ballot in 2008 - calls for the creation of a committee to be called the Washoe County Schools Construction and Revitalization Advisory Committee, a true government-inspired horse-choker of a name if ever there was one.

This committee “shall, not later than May 1, 2008, (a) Prepare recommendations for the imposition of one or more taxes in the county to provide funding for the Washoe County School District,” states the legislation. Said tax hike recommendations must be approved by 10 of the 15 members and then ratified by a vote of the people in November.

Make no mistake. No amount of “lawyerese” can spin this as anything but an effort to raise taxes. Period.

That being said, let’s peer into our crystal ball and see if we can glean the odds of the Washoe County Schools Construction and Revitalization Advisory Committee NOT voting to raise any taxes at all. To do so, let’s look at the legislatively-mandated make-up of the committee:

* The Superintendent of public schools in Washoe County. Gee, I wonder how HE’LL vote?

* Two members of the Senate and two members of the Assembly, one from each party, but all from Washoe County. Note that every legislator from Washoe County except Assemblyman Ty Cobb CO-SPONSORED the original bill. Any bets on whether Cobb makes it onto the Washoe County Schools Construction and Revitalization Advisory Committee? Yeah, me neither.

* One member from the gaming industry. Let’s face it, the gaming industry has been trying to gore every other industry’s tax ox for years. What are the odds of this representative voting against a tax hike on entities other than gaming? Exactly.

* One member who is a representative of business or commercial interests other than gaming. That *might* be a vote against tax hikes, depending on the tax hikes themselves. But don’t bet the farm on it.

* One member who is a representative of the Nevada Association of Realtors; probably one of only two probable votes against any tax hike proposal, since a real estate transfer tax is certain to be included.

* One member whose is a representative of the association of homebuilders, likely the only other probable vote against whatever tax hike package the committee comes up with.

* One member who is a representative of the county fair and recreation board. Ex-squeeze me? Why is someone from the county fair being given a seat on a committee to come up with tax hikes to fund school construction?

* One member who is a representative of the largest publicly-traded electric utility in the county. Think about this: Electric rates, like everything else, continue to go up. That means less money in the existing budget for other things. That gets bureaucrats howling. So an increase in taxes to feed a bigger budget takes the pressure off electric companies to lower rates. Hmm, anyone wonder how their representative will likely vote on a tax hike package which doesn’t hit them?

* One member who is a representative of a labor organization, appointed by the State of Nevada AFL-CIO. Thanks to project labor agreements and prevailing wage laws, any school construction will be done by organized labor. Any doubt how their representative will vote on higher taxes to fund school construction projects?

* One member who is a representative of the largest organization of educators in the county. In plain English, that means the teachers union. In other words, a solid vote for higher taxes.

* One member of the general public appointed by the PTA. Duh. Tax hikes to build schools on entities other than parents? Any guess how an appointed member of the Parent-Teacher Association is going to vote?

* One member who is a representative of the general public, appointed by the Governor. You’d think/hope that this person would be a sure vote against any proposed tax hike package; however, if the Governor signs the bill enabling the creation of this committee to develop a package of tax hikes, one would rightly be skeptical.

Notice who decidedly and prominently is NOT included as a member of the Washoe County Schools Construction and Revitalization Advisory Committee? Why, a true taxpayer watchdog. Go figure. Plenty of all but slam-dunk votes in FAVOR of whatever tax hikes they come up with, but not one member representing the public who would be all but a slam-dunk AGAINST ‘em. What are the odds?

So drawing on my public school math education, it looks to me like a vote in favor of whatever tax package the committee comes up will likely fall along the lines of 13-2 or 12-3…or maybe in a best-case scenario 11-4 in favor.

This is a stacked deck. The outcome is pre-determined. Elected legislators have pawned off responsibility for coming up with tax hikes on an unelected committee with practically NO independent, objective, conflict-free members. No matter how you slice it, this deal stinks to the high heavens.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: If “the people” - not government-types and special interests - want to raise taxes on themselves to pay for school construction, then let “the people” of Washoe County circulate a petition to put said tax increase on the ballot. And then let “the people” vote on it. Why is this so difficult to understand?

Whether this biased special committee or “the people” put a tax hike on the ballot, it still won’t get there until November 2008; so time constraints are no reason not to go the petition route. The issue won’t get on the ballot any faster by letting this tax-hike committee do it. So why not make raising taxes at least as difficult as it is to cut them, restrain them or control spending, right?

One final thought here: The problem isn’t school construction; the problem is school overcrowding. Once we acknowledge that reality, other options can and should be considered.

For example, if a certain school is overcrowded by 200 students, why not offer the parents of 200 students a “voucher” in an amount somewhat less than is currently being expended to educate the kids in the overcrowded public school providing they send their kids somewhere else? This could very well relieve the overcrowding problem virtually overnight without building a single new school.

Would make for smaller class sizes, as well.

Why isn’t THAT option on the table?

And until it is, NO effort to raise taxes should even be remotely considered.

So let it be written; so let it be done.

Posted on June 4th, 2007 by Chuck Muth
Filed under: Nevada