Thursday, March 20, 2003
Copyright © Las Vegas Mercury

Backstory: The legislative clock is ticking

By Michael Green

The state Legislature is being heard from. That constitutes news. And it reflects a problem with Nevada's government that some of our populace seems too dense to solve.

Assembly Speaker Richard Perkins announced last year that he would counter Gov. Kenny Guinn's tax proposal. He still seems to be formulating it, but has made welcome noises about a graduated property tax rate that would go easier on the poor and businesses paying some sort of tax.

Another fund-raising idea comes from state Senate Minority Leader Dina Titus. She's suggested a tax on strip clubs. Given the additional discussion of increased taxes on legal brothels, this takes the idea of a sin tax to a far more logical conclusion than hiking the fees on cigarettes, which would amount to a regressive tax: the rich and the poor would suffer. If you have noticed some of the newer buildings for exotic dancers, you might begin to wonder whether the Bellagio was underbuilt.

Clearly, plenty of money is flowing through these businesses. Titus, in what has to be described as a naked appeal to logic, wants the state to rake some of it in.

The first official proposal, though, is the work of two state senators: Las Vegas Democrat Terry Care and Carson City Republican Mark Amodei. They have good reasons for coming forward. One, Guinn didn't spend much time worrying about what the Legislature might say about his plan or what alternatives it might propose, so Care and Amodei think legislators ought to do their jobs and legislate. Two, they fear Guinn's plan for a gross receipts tax is dead on arrival.

Neither last nor least, they also are eyeing room and service taxes--in other words, taxes tacked on bills paid by those who can afford to pay them, although their proposal has its share of regressive taxes.

But still, this is truly strange. Some legislators have the guts to speak up for more taxes--meaning they actually care about their state and their constituents, as opposed to know-nothings who think you can cut more than $1 billion out of state and local budgets and have decent schools, roads and social services.

Stranger still, some legislators think the answer is to tax those who can most afford to be taxed. This is known as progressive taxation. The idea is that taxing property is fairer and better than relying upon, say, a sales tax. If my property is worth more than yours, I pay more, which is fair, because I can afford to do so. But if everyone has to pay a 7.25 percent sales tax, those who can least afford to bear the burden bear it equally with me, Wayne Newton, Terry Lanni and a homeless man sleeping in a park.

For Nevada legislators to suggest more equitable taxation is unusual. And these four lawmakers have proposed some changes worth considering. So, of course, are Guinn's gross receipts tax and some of the other proposals from the task force the governor appointed. Whether intelligent discussion is possible may be debated. After all, the Legislature never has been noted as the center of intellectual life. Nor does it help that the anti-tax forces are fewer, according to polls, but louder and more likely to strike fear in the hearts of those legislators more interested in holding office than in doing something useful in the office they hold.

Another problem works against the intelligent discussion, and intelligent solutions, that we need: time. One time problem is the financial well is rapidly running dry, so quick action may be needed. Another is that the Bush administration cannot explain why war with Iraq is necessary, but we can explain what will happen to a tourist economy when terrorists start thinking of ways to capitalize on the anti-American feeling Bush has managed to create. Our casinos could look much as they did on Sept. 12, 2001: empty. And thus goes our economy.

The other time factor is the Legislature has but 120 days to finish its business and the clock is running. Why alternate tax plans weren't suggested long before is understandable: Guinn waited until his State of the State Address, and it hardly seems reasonable to expect legislators to start working up tax plans without knowing where the governor is headed with his own plan.

Except that it would, in fact, be reasonable. The information about the state's budget problems was clear enough last year--in fact, it has been clear for decades. Our tax base is too limited and our Legislature lacks the time, in 120-day biennial sessions, to deal with the problem. We should change to annual sessions. Since it was a legislator--state Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio--who came up with the limited session, we could say that they can stew in their own juice. Just remember, that juice is red ink, and it's washing over you.