Political columnist Jon Ralston just published the following update titled “Governor says he would support room tax deal if put on ballot and approved” in his “Flash” e-newsletter…
“Gov. Jim Gibbons met Thursday with Steve Wynn to discuss negotiations between gamers and teachers to swap bump in room tax for gross gaming tax proposed in initiative. Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio also was on the meeting. Gubernatorial spokesman Ben Kieckhefer said ‘the Governor indicated that if this plan were to receive a vote of the people through an advisory question, he could support it, which is his policy.’”
Make no mistake. If the teachers gather enough signatures to put a tax hike on the ballot this year, the Governor is obligated by the Taxpayer Protection Pledge he signed in 2006 to oppose it.
Likewise, if the Legislature, rather than the people themselves through the signature-gathering process, attempts to put even an advisory question on the ballot in an effort to raise taxes, the Governor is obligated by the Taxpayer Protection Pledge to oppose and veto any such effort should it reach his desk.
That the Governor appears to going wobbly on this should be of considerable concern to fiscal conservatives and Republicans. A violation of his Tax Pledge would likely doom any and all thoughts of a second Gibbons gubernatorial term and kill the electoral chances of GOP candidates up and down the ballot. Apparently either the Governor or some people on his staff (where is the Chief Operating Officer on this?) are having difficulty reading and/or understanding the plain language of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge the Governor made to the people of Nevada when he ran for governor in 2006. So please allow me to reprint it verbatim so that there is no further confusion on this issue…
“I, Jim Gibbons, pledge to the taxpayers of Nevada, and all the people of this State, that I will oppose and veto any and all efforts to increase taxes.”
The deal some in the gaming industry are trying to cut with the teachers union to raise taxes through a legislatively created “advisory question” rather than gathering signatures from citizens to do such a thing is absolutely, positively, without question, no-doubt-about-it an effort to increase taxes. And Gov. Gibbons absolutely, positively, without question, no-doubt-about-it is obligated by the pledge he signed to oppose any such effort and veto any such bill should it come before him. If not, he will have absolutely, positively, without question, no-doubt-about-it broken the Taxpayer Protection Pledge he signed. I can’t make it any clearer than that.
Perhaps it might be helpful for you all to call and/or email the governor with a little friendly reminder of the promise he made to us in 2006, since it seems it might just be slipping his or his staff’s mind these days.
In Carson City call: (775) 684-5670
In Las Vegas call: (702) 486-2500
Or email the governor directly at: jgibbons@gov.nv.gov
Posted on May 9th, 2008 by Chuck Muth
Filed under: Nevada
I’m just morbidly curious: which is better, an astronomical tax increase of 3% on gaming or a much smaller 2% room tax increase? I know, the land of Dorothy and the Wizard of Oz must be frightfully entertaining, but if the polls are correct - and it would appear that they are — then the Governor and the “fiscal conservatives” can whine all they want, and witness one of the largest tax hikes in Nevada history. It seems far more prudent, from an economic standpoint, to permit the Governor some flexibility here in order to stave off the alternative. Or have you forgotten in your obvious ignorance of Nevada Constitutional Law that the Governor can not veto initiatives? Just some thoughts from the peanut gallery, but perhaps worth chewing over.
You are correct. You are in the peanut gallery and, therefore, are too far away from reality to understand what’s going on. Please stay in the seats where you can neither get hurt or hurt anyone else.
Well, I never said I favored the tax hike, nor did I say I would support either the room tax increase or the gaming tax increase. I simply asked a valid Game Theory question, which by the way was never answered. So I will pose it again: if it looks like the gaming tax would increase, would it be better to switch it with the room tax increase? After all, the initiative can not face a veto. I really did have a serious question, and was hoping for a serious answer. If you took me to be in favor of either, I can only say that you have never spoken with me, for if you had you would find me to be entirely conservative. Let me put it to you this way: I will likely never send my children to public schools, and I teach bell to bell, basics in English: Greek/Latin roots, grammar, spelling (phonics), reading comprehension of literary and classical texts, etc. I do not do, nor do I believe in, the touchy-feely garbage. So once again, should the Governor leave well enough alone and risk the enormous tax increase? I really am interested in an answer.