Make no mistake: Nevada’s voters and taxpayers have not been clamoring for an increase in the room tax to pay teachers higher salaries. This was a backroom deal struck by one special interest (the teachers union) which wanted more money from another special interest (the gaming industry) that didn’t want to pay it. So they’ve teamed up (not all gamers, just some) in an effort to sock it to Nevada’s lifeblood - our tourists - who will not even get a vote on the scheme.
This deal sucks on so many different levels it’s hard to know where to start.
Let’s begin with the fact that if education in this state needs more money (it doesn’t) and if higher taxes are required to get more money for education (they aren’t), then that tax burden for Nevada’s citizens should be born by Nevada’s citizens, not our tourists. And if more money does need to be put into education (it doesn’t), then the first thing we should do is set some spending priorities and take money from non-essential government operations, such as the Nevada Arts Council and the Civil Rights Commission.
But what’s done is done. The deal-makers now must draft an advisory question on raising the room tax and convince all 17 Nevada county commissions to put the question on the ballot. Nevada citizens who oppose this effort to raise taxes on our tourists should contact their county commissions immediately and urge them not to do so.
But this matter won’t end even if the commissions choose not to put the advisory question on their ballots. The teachers union and the gamers will be collecting signatures this summer for a legislative initiative should the advisory question gambit not pay off. That legislative initiative would force the Nevada Legislature to vote on the tax hike scheme as one of the first orders of business when it reconvenes next year. And if the Legislature fails to approve the measure, it will automatically go on the ballot in 2010.
So for those who oppose this backroom deal - or ANY tax hike for that matter - you should urge your elected state legislators to sign the Taxpayer Protection Pledge promising to vote against this measure should it come before them. Fortunately, any such tax hike proposal must have either a 2/3-super majority vote of the Legislature or a Supreme Court willing to shred the state Constitution for political purposes.
And finally, Nevada voters should contact Gov. Jim Gibbons and remind him that the Taxpayer Protection Pledge he signed in 2006 requires him to veto any and all efforts to increase taxes passed by the Legislature regardless of whether or not any “advisory question” put on the 2008 ballot by county commissions passes or not. He seems to be waffling a bit on his promise these days.
If the Legislature really wants to raise taxes, they may do so by simply overriding the governor’s veto - and then voters will decide if the Legislature or the governor did the right thing at the ballot box in 2010.
Or if the Legislature refuses to pass the room tax hike, the teachers and the gamers are free to gather signatures from enough citizens to force the issue onto the ballot in 2010 as a constitutional amendment - the same process Gov. Gibbons went through to put his Tax Restraint Initiative on the ballot in 1994 and state Sen. Bob Beers went through to put his Tax and Spending Control initiative on the ballot in 2006 and what the teachers originally tried to do with their gaming tax grab this year.
It shouldn’t be easier to put a tax hike on the ballot than it is to put a tax restraint measure on the ballot. And county commissioners shouldn’t short-circuit the process by doing the special interests’ dirty work by putting any “advisory question” on this year’s ballot. Just…say…no.
Posted on May 21st, 2008 by Chuck Muth
Filed under: Nevada
Leave a Reply