Time to Get Serious About Tax Pledge

Nevada’s state government isn’t taking in anywhere NEAR enough tax revenue these days to pay for the over-sized government the Legislature has grown for the past 15 years. The situation is so bad that a special session has been called by the governor and is scheduled to convene on Friday of this week to address the problem.

To close the gap, you have to do one of two things: Raise taxes or cut spending. It’s just that simple.

Gov. Jim Gibbons, to his credit, is honoring the promise he made to Nevada voters and taxpayers in 2006 and is refusing to support raising taxes. The problem is, the Legislature could override a gubernatorial veto and pass a massive new tax increase in the next legislative session in 2009.

Democrats in the state Assembly, however, won’t be able to do it on their own. They will probably have to get some help from a few Republicans to muster the 2/3 vote needed to both pass a tax hike and override the governor’s veto. The problem is, there are a number of Republican incumbents in the Assembly - as well as some Republican candidates running against incumbent Democrats with good chances of winning in the fall - who have yet to take the Tax Pledge and back up Gov. Gibbons.

Below is a list of the names of incumbent Assembly Republicans and some GOP challengers who still haven’t signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge in the hope that they will quickly do so and send an unmistakable signal to Speaker Barbara Buckley that if Democrats want to pass any tax hikes, the Democrats will have to do so with NO Republican votes. This will draw a CLEAR distinction between the two parties going into the November elections.

Now…

If a candidate continues to waffle and/or refuse to sign the Pledge by this weekend, plans are already in place to begin sending automated phone messages into their districts telling voters that these candidates have refused to promise not to raise their taxes and advising them to ask these candidates why not when they come to the door asking for votes.

The non-Pledge signers on the initial list of Republicans subject to our upcoming phone campaign are:

Assembly Minority Leader Heidi Gansert
Assemblywoman Francis Allen
Assemblyman Joe Hardy
Assemblyman Tom Grady
Assemblyman Pete Goicoechea

Assembly candidate Sean Fellows
Assembly candidate Cheryl Lau
Assembly candidate Donna Toussaint
Assembly candidate John Gwaltney
Assembly candidate Melissa Woodbury

I’ve heard Republicans whine that this is “extortion.” Bull. It’s not extortion. It’s politics. And the tax-hiking side is doing this, as well. I’m already hearing that groups such as the Associated General Contractors - which will reap financial rewards for its members if taxes are raised and new government construction projects are authorized - are threatening to withhold their support and endorsements from candidates who DO sign the Tax Pledge. Well, what’s good for the goose…

As the old saying goes, the power to tax is the power to destroy. Voters have every right to know whether or not a candidate seeking their vote will turn around and vote to raise their taxes. And if the candidates won’t tell voters their position on this critical issue, especially this year, we will.

Assembly candidates who have not yet signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge can download a copy by going to www.atr.org and fax it back to us at (775) 522-3925. And any candidate wishing to discuss the Pledge or have any questions about it answered should feel free to call me personally at (775) 884-9264.

As they used to say in M*A*S*H, that is all.

Chuck Muth
Grand Imperial Tax-Hating Pooh-Bah
Citizen Outreach PAC - Nevada

4 Responses to “Time to Get Serious About Tax Pledge”

  1. So if we’re going to require a 2/3’s vote to raise taxes, why not require the same 2/3’s to lower them? It’s just as easy for a bunch of crazy wacko’s to get elected and wreak havoc on the state by mindlessly cutting taxes as it is for a bunch of crazy wacko’s to get elected and wreak havoc on the state by mindlessly raising taxes. Both are capable of causing considerable harm to the state and its citizens.

    Why the double standard? Why give one form of legislation statutory preference over another? Don’t you see any issues with that?

  2. “Mark,” are you smoking crack?

  3. Nice answer….

  4. Thanks. It was eminently appropriate.

Leave a Reply