| CURRENT WEATHER: Clear, 49° |
|
|
|
||
|
||||
|
February 2, 2005
Freedom's just another word for taxes left to lose
In a decision that will impact the citizens of Nevada for years to come, the U.S. Supreme Court chose not to hear arguments on the decision to overturn the right to amend the constitution by petition. This was expected because of a little reported power of judges to make decisions not based upon existing law, but rather by a decree based solely on the discretion of the judge. The right to petition your government is one of the most basic civil rights in a representative democracy. It is one of the very first rights removed when a more authoritarian form of thinkers begins to believe they have all the answers. The people's needs and desires become secondary to those of the state. The overriding concern of those in government will become how to sustain their own power. The founding fathers knew this to be the greatest potential failing of democracies. Two years ago, the Democratic members of the Legislature were committed to enacting the largest tax increase in Nevada history. With the aid of our "Republican" governor, they filed suit to challenge an amendment to the Constitution requiring a two-thirds majority vote before new tax increases can occur. More than a few people wrote, pleaded and provided all manner of evidence that the increases proposed were not necessary. They have since been proven right. The tax increase merely provided a means to raise the base level of government spending to a level that will require another round of tax increases just to keep up with increases in the cost of living raises. Fear of precisely this scenario led to the petition and ballot initiative requiring a two-thirds majority vote for a new increase in taxation to occur. Having witnessed the very painful exercise in wasteful spending on the part of our neighbor to the west, Nevadans chose to petition their government and amend the Constitution to ensure our state would not suffer the same fate. This decision was not taken lightly nor made easily. Such a change requires the measure be approved not once, but twice, in two separate general elections. The measure passed by a wide majority of voters on both occasions, and contained no exceptions to the two-thirds vote requirement. Yet the Nevada Supreme Court ruled otherwise and now, should the issue arise in the future, those wanting to raise taxes need only cite the prior ruling as proof we cannot to stop tax increases. That time might not be far off. The State of the State address was presented with hundreds of millions of dollars in additional spending requested. If approved, it wouldn't take more than one election cycle before Democrats and their special interest groups will have spent the surplus and once again plead poverty. They are already on record that the request was not enough. Never mind that state spending will have doubled since the 1998 budget cycle. Supporters of the increase will merely say the funds are needed to offset the unbridled growth in our state. They won't bother to mention that the fastest growing segment of Nevada's economy is government employment at all levels. Total government employment has grown in the last decade to now represent one of every eight working people. The other seven are faced with being paid reduced wages from overly taxed companies, large and small, who must shoulder the burden through fees and taxes on almost anything the bureau of economic development doesn't list as not being taxed in state brochures. The 30-40 percent disparity in average wages between private sector and public employees is at best ignored by those once called public or civil servants. To most this disparity is simply not fathomable. Yet it is there, it is growing, and it may have only just begun. Since the end of the last Legislature, no less than five petitions meant to accomplish objectives very similar to the one negated by the court failed to gather enough signatures for a vote. Each was blocked at one time and another by people in or beholden to civil service who are supposed to uphold the Constitution. Each time such an incident was reported, if at all, apologies were made, but the practice continued. With the recent increase in property taxes due to the sudden upward spiral in housing prices, many homeowners have begun to contact their representatives directly rather than trying to start petition drives to accomplish the same objective. With any luck, they will have some success, but I doubt it. History has proven nothing if not that politicians will tell you anything you want to hear and then do nothing but make excuses when the result is less than desired or expected. The one safety net to protect the people from such practices was the petition process. Government counts on us not watching, listening or learning from any of its innumerable mistakes. In this way, they have nothing more to fear from the initiative process and all we have to do is continue to pay the bills. Little writes from Pahrump. His column, "The Other Side," appears here on Wednesdays. |
