The current general fund budget for 2005-2007 is roughly $5.8 billion dollars. Back in January, Gov. Jim Gibbons proposed a new general fund budget for 2007-2009 in excess of $6.8 billion. That was an 18 percent increase.
Last year, state Sen. Bob Beers (R-Las Vegas) ran almost his entire gubernatorial campaign on one issue: Government spending. The issue was of such paramount importance that he raised a ton of money to put his Tax and Spending Control (TASC) initiative on the ballot. I think he even changed his middle name to “TASC.” Had the initiative passed, government spending would be limited to the combined rate of population growth plus inflation. MORE than reasonable.
As Sen. Beers wrote when he launched his signature-gathering drive to qualify the initiative for the 2006 ballot: “The TASC amendment puts government on a set budget, just like a family or a business. TASC guarantees that Nevada’s government will grow as our state grows, but limits government growth to a sane, reasonable rate, a rate Nevada taxpayers can afford. If our representatives want to increase taxes or spend more than their limit, they have to ask us for permission.”
TASCers (or is it TASCites?) in the Legislature should put our money where their mouths are, whether TASC is the law of the land or not, right? I mean, anyone who supported TASC should absolutely, in order to remain consistent and not be hypocritical about it, vote against any budget this session which exceeds what the TASC cap would otherwise be, right? Or at least insist that voters have the opportunity to vote against said budget, right? That’s what Sen. Beers said, right?
We’ll soon see. A study by the Beacon Hill Institute, an economic think tank at Boston’s Suffolk University, has placed the budget cap, if TASC was in place, at 13.4 percent, or $6.572 billion.
Meanwhile, the Associated Press is reporting this morning that the final budget number will be over $7 billion. If so, that will be a staggering $428 million OVER the “sane, reasonable” TASC figure, a whopping spending increase of some 21 percent!
Surely, that means Sen. Beers, author of TASC, will be voting against the budget, right?
Wrong.
Sen. Beers informs us that he will be voting FOR this huge 21 percent increase in government spending? Why? Well, it appears because of the budget deal he participated in which made the small, temporary payroll tax reduction he championed in 2005 permanent.
I’m all for tax cuts, but consider this…
The tax reduction Sen. Beers was able to make permanent with this budget deal reportedly comes to $18 million. On the other hand, the spending increases approved with this budget deal are $428 million above TASC.
$18 million in tax cuts in return for $428 million in spending increases? Do YOU think this is such a great deal? Me neither. And the next time Sen. Beers trumpets his virtues of fiscal responsibility and restraining government spending, exactly how much credibility will he have on the issue?
Exactly.
Posted on June 4th, 2007 by Chuck Muth
Filed under: Nevada
[…] My old friend Chuck Muth called me a hypocrite in his Internet blog today, getting a few things wrong (such as that the final budget is larger than the one Governor Gibbons first submitted) while contending it is hypocritical for me to both introduce a TASC amendment and vote for the budget during the 2007 legislative session. […]