The Founding Fathers were geniuses. They knew the executive branch nor the legislative branch nor the judicial branch of government could be trusted implicitly, so they set up a system of checks and balances to keep any one branch from taking control of the government from the people. I mention this because a lot of folks have been hammering Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons over his “no new taxes” pledge to the point where, if stories yesterday were accurate, he might be starting to buckle under the pressure.
As you may recall, the gaming industry and the teachers union are reportedly close to a deal whereby the union will abandon its effort to gather enough signatures on a petition to hike the gaming tax some 44 percent (an indication that they might not be on target to get enough signatures by the May 20 deadline) in return for the Legislature putting an “advisory question” on the ballot asking the people if it’s OK for the Legislature to raise the hotel room tax instead - which would primarily hit out-of-state tourists who will have no vote on the tax hike.
In other words, taxation without representation. But that’s another argument for another day.
But here’s the thing: Because of the system of checks and balances we enjoy in this state, the ultimate decision on whether or not to raise taxes lies with the Legislature, not the governor. Indeed, even uber-liberals such as Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie (D-Reno) acknowledge, as she is quoted in this morning’s Reno Gazette-Journal as saying, that “we do not live in a monarchy and the legislative branch is equal to the executive branch.”
In reality, however, when it comes to raising taxes the legislative branch is actually MORE equal. You see, the Legislature, not the governor, gets the final word. The Legislature, by a 2/3 vote, can approve any tax hike, including one to jack up the taxes on our already beleaguered tourists. And the governor, honoring the promise he made to the people, could and should then veto any such bill. But the matter wouldn’t end there. The Legislature, you see, could then over-ride the governor’s veto by the same 2/3 vote it needed to pass the tax hike in the first place.
So those who want to raise taxes, rather than cut spending and lay off non-essential government workers, should really get off the governor’s back and instead hammer the Legislature. After all, Gov. Gibbons campaigned for office promising not to raise taxes; the same can’t be said for most legislators who steadfastly refuse to make such a bold fiscally conservative commitment to voters and then run on it.
And instead of buckling and trying to find “loopholes” to get around his pledge - like this ill-advised and pledge-breaking “advisory question” scheme - the governor should simply tell everyone over and over and over again that if it wants to, the Legislature should go ahead and pass a tax hike with a 2/3 majority, he’ll then veto it like he promised, and then they can over-ride his veto and impose yet higher taxes on Nevada’s “working families” (isn’t that the term the Left always uses?). The governor can then run for re-election in 2010 as having kept his word not to raise our taxes and campaign against the 2/3 of the Legislature who did.
And may the best protector of the taxpayer win.
Posted on May 10th, 2008 by Chuck Muth
Filed under: Nevada
Muth
After all, Gov. Gibbons campaigned for office promising not to raise taxes;
Dan
So did Gov. Guinn. And then he fought for and won the biggest tax increase in the history of NV. Which is one of the many reasons Republicans have been losing their credibility and seats in Congress. My guess is, Gov. Gibbons will soon be explaining his good reasons to us why taxes must be increased… for our own good. We’ll see.
You are incorrect. Gov. Guinn never signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. Gov. Gibbons did.
Clay,
It is equally important that Republicans not increase spending like they did for years! Our Republican officials (all of them in this State at the federal level), increase spending and lower taxes. They act like welfare queens: They spend more than they take in and live way over the heads. They expect someone else to pay the way.
That is why Republicans can’t win still, they have proven record of being liers on fiscal conservatism! What a pity. I could understand a few years of rewarding their donors, but since they took control of congress in 1994 I can’t accept their piggishness of the next 12 years. All that record earmarking imprinted on the electorate proved that Republicans were for sale to our big donors.
With Duke Cunningham just a bit behind us we have a few years to go before we’re out of the woods. I say after two years of President Obama and a Congress run by Reid and Pelosi our ship will come in-and in a BIG way!