Former Nevada superintendent of public education Eugene Paslov appears to have been using public school “fuzzy” math when he claimed recently that “years of budget tightening…has squeezed out virtually all waste, if any ever existed. Cutting fat is long gone. We’re now cutting bone.” Oh, puh-lease.
Only a public school bureaucrat could look at years of double-digit increases in state budgets and label them “tightening” rather than “ballooning.” And Paslov’s statement about bone cutting is ridiculous on its face, especially when one considers that the university system of “higher education” is offering courses such as “The Culture of Pizza,” and transportation officials are producing $4,000 videos teaching people how to drive around traffic circles. Gimme a break.
The problem in Nevada isn’t a lack of tax revenue. The real problem is that the Legislature spends every last dime it finds on the street. Like Paslov’s dogs, they salivate at the mere mention of a new spending program. Even the money “saved” in the Rainy Day Fund is a honey-pot these spendaholics are dying to get their sticky paws into.
Before higher taxes of any kind for any purpose on anybody or anything (other than maybe taxing teachers union dues) is even remotely considered, the following four-point Fiscal Responsibility Plan should be adopted and implemented.
1.) THE MEAT-CLEAVER COMMISSION – Empanel a study commission made up of people who believe government is the problem and not the solution to look at the budget for the purpose of identifying programs and services which have outlived their usefulness, aren’t getting enough bang for the taxpayers’ buck, are duplicative, are wasteful, can be streamlined, can be done better or less expensively by the private sector, or shouldn’t be done by the government at all. THEN let’s have a serious discussion about the government’s spending priorities.
2.) TRANSPARENCY – Every time the average Nevadan writes a check they enter the transaction into a check register which enables them to see exactly what is being spent, to whom, and for what purpose. The government’s check registers, at all levels, should be posted on a searchable public database website so every Nevada taxpayer can quickly and easily see where every dime of its money is going.
3.) OPERATION OFFSET - All new spending programs must be offset by a corresponding cut in old spending somewhere else. The average taxpayer understands this. It’s like wanting something new, like HBO, on a fixed family budget. If you want it badly enough you’ll give up something else less important in return. Government should operate the same way.
4.) BUDGET CAP - And lastly, legislators should voluntarily pledge to vote against any future spending increases which exceed the rate of population growth plus inflation. That kind of growth rate is far more generous than most Nevadans enjoy in their own family budgets. If the Legislature wishes to exceed that very generous cap, it should do so only with a 2/3 super-majority vote.
Until elected officials embrace these very reasonable, fiscally responsible policies, the bottom line should remain: No…new…taxes.
Posted on December 18th, 2007 by Chuck Muth
Filed under: Nevada
How about cutting the “Nevada Department of Hispanic Services” in it’s entirety?
How many other contrived categories of Nevadans get their own special state funded lobbying and entitlement organization, based on their “Race” , or it language?
Where’s the Nevada department of English speaking native Anglo’s Services?
Oh, that would be racist, and no doubt illegal!
Funny how some people get such special treatment, while still claiming to be unfairly exploited and discriminated against.
Here’s another way to cut the budget substantially.
Transfer the illegal alien criminals using up so much Nevada prison and jail space to Federal custody.
Exact figures are difficult to obtain, but judging by other states where the information is more available, doing this would reduce the Nevada prison population enough to actually close one or two prisons.
I hear excuses for why this cannot be done, but not genuine reasons.
It’s clearly the Fed Gov’s responsabilty to secure our borders, the Fed. and activist liberal judges have made it difficult for states to take any active role in controlling illegals.
Maybe if the Fed Gov. didn’t get to shift the cost of criminal illegals incarceration to the states, we might actually see some genuine effort to control our borders and Visa restrictions.
If we truly cannot transfer these criminals to Fed custody we should implement a modified parole program.
One where the illegals are eligible for immediate parole on the condition that they can only be released from custody if they accept immediate deportation.
If they return to the U.S. they should have to begin their sentence over from the beginning.
I am sure that the fare for returning them to their proper country is far less than their continued incarceration.
Here’s another way to cut both expenses and the size of Gov. Org.
Any city, county, or state Law that is not enforced for “X” number of years is automatically repealed!
This means the Gov. entity no longer bears the expense of tracking that law, and if a law is not being enforced often enough for the average citizen or L.E. to be aware of it, then it’s probably not a necessary statute to begin with.
This came to my attention as a result of some sudden selective enforcement down in Las Vegas over this past week end.
It seems some petty and arcane city ordinances relating to our RKBA have been ignored for decades, but were suddenly re-implemented for last week end’s gun show.
What a PC way to kill off a sales tax revenue stream in the midst of a “Budget Crises”.
I don’t know for certain who is responsible for this Bull-Flop, but they should be fired, or impeached, as appropriate.
Here are the “Regulations” in question.
10.66.020 Dealer permit–Required–Leasing prohibited.
It shall be unlawful for any person, except a dealer having a pistol permit issued under the provisions of this Chapter, to engage in the business of buying or selling pistols at retail or wholesale, or of accepting pledges of pistols as security for loans, and no such permit shall authorize the leasing of any pistol.
(Ord. 1216 § 2 (part), 1965: prior code § 6-4-4)
10.66.030 Dealer permit–Eligible firms.
Applications for pistol permits shall be accepted only from duly licensed hardware stores, gunsmith shops, sporting goods stores, stores which outfit and equip police officers and security guards, Class IV secondhand dealers and pawnshops where pistols may be sold or purchased in compliance with this Chapter.
(Ord. 5060 § 6, 1998: Ord. 2270 § 1, 1982: Ord. 1216 § 2 (part), 1965: prior code § 6-4-5)
10.66.040 Dealer permit–Application–Investigation–Issuance.
(A) Any person desiring a pistol permit to engage in the business of buying or selling pistols, or of accepting pledges of pistols as security for loans, under the provisions of this Chapter, shall first apply to the City Council setting out his name, address, and other information as may be required and the business (other than dealing in pistols) intended to be carried on and stating a request for a pistol permit to deal in pistols at such place.
(B) The application will then be referred to the Sheriff of the Metropolitan Police Department, or his designee, for his investigation and his recommendation, then back to the Council which may, after considering same in any manner that may appear to it proper, approve or disapprove such application. If disapproved, then no pistol permit shall be issued. If approved, the Sheriff or his designee shall issue a pistol permit to such app licant to deal in pistols at the place named and under the present business license of such applicant.
(Ord. 1897 § 1, 1977: Ord. 1881 § 2, 1977: Ord. 1216 § 2 (part), 1965: prior
code § 6-4-6)