On Sunday, Feb. 8, District 36 Assemblyman Ed Goedhart, R-Amargosa Valley, sent an e-mail to his legislative colleagues outlining his feelings about "dealing with the state's overspending problem."

Upon receiving his copy of the e-mail, Senate Minority Leader Bill Raggio, R-Reno, took offense and sent a letter to Goedhart on Tuesday morning, Feb. 10, telling the rural Nevadan, "I have some long-term experience in this legislative process and I really don't think I benefit from the 'advice' that you are offering."

Goedhart had written as follows:

Dear Colleagues,

As we enter the second week of the 75th session of the Nevada Legislature, I hope you'll take the following into consideration as we move forward in dealing with the state's overspending problem: 1.) Sunset tax hikes: Although I have no intention of voting for any tax increases of any kind, especially in a recession, I appreciate that a number of my colleagues feel differently. For those who believe higher taxes are the answer to our state's current overspending problem, I would at least encourage you to include a sunset provision on any such proposals.

If the reason for raising taxes in this recession is to replace money not coming in because of the bad economy, such tax increases will eventually result in a tax windfall once the economy turns back around.

And we all know what a hole that will burn in legislators' pockets when it happens.

We also know that there's no such thing as a "temporary" tax hike; that all "temporary" tax hikes somehow always become permanent. At the very least, we should require future Legislatures to take a look at all tax increases you may be considering this session and vote for their continuation in the future based on the circumstances at the time.

2.) Revenue-neutral tax reform: A number of people have suggested that Nevada's tax system itself is flawed, in addition to the overspending problem we face. It's been suggested that we need to "reform" the system to make it more stable in both good times and bad.

Call me cynical, but I suspect some of these people are trying to use tax "reform" as a cover for tax "hikes."

Nevertheless, for those who genuinely believe we need to diversify, and arguably make Nevada's tax system more stable by increasing the tax burden on certain sectors of our community, I encourage such proposals be made in a revenue-neutral fashion.

What this Legislature should not do is use tax "reform" as a fig leaf to disguise efforts to increase overall government revenue by increasing taxes in some areas without lowering them in other areas. The objective of true tax reform should be to level out the tax burden, not increase it.

While opposed to any net tax increases, I am open to considering true, revenue-neutral tax reform proposals. 3.) Future spending cap: The reason we're in the trouble we're in today isn't because of the natural ups-and-downs of our economy.

We're in a trouble today because when the economy was good the Legislature acted irresponsibly by spending almost every dime it could get its hands on -- increasing the size and scope of existing government programs and departments, in addition to adding new ones.

Rest assured, our economy will eventually turn around. And when it does there will be a lot of pressure applied to legislators to "replace" the spending and government programs we will be cutting or eliminating this coming session.

I encourage this Legislature to act responsibly and pass legislation which imposes a new, hard spending cap that will limit future budget increases to the combined rate of population growth plus inflation -- unless a higher percentage increase is approved by a 2/3 super-majority vote of the Legislature.

4.) The stimulus money: It appears likely the federal government will approve some level of "stimulus" money for various states which are overspending their budgets -- and that Nevada will be one of them.

If so, members of the Nevada Legislature ought to insist that one-shot federal "stimulus" money not be used to create new programs which we'll only have to find additional revenue for down the road once the federal money is gone.

I believe now is the time for the 2009 Legislature to make hard choices, not false choices; to put our financial house in order in a fiscally responsible way, and establish safeguards and spending controls which will prevent the state from having to make such painful choices in the future.

To the ends listed above, I stand ready to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for the remainder of this session.

Sincerely yours,

Assemblyman Ed Goedhart.

The following is Raggio's response:

Assemblyman Goedhart:

This is in response to your self-titled "4-point Fiscal Blueprint" which you directed to me Feb. 8.

Since you indicate that "you have no intention of voting for any tax increases of any kind," you really have removed yourself from being any part of a potential solution to solving our serious budget crisis. If we are to balance a budget and insure delivery of "essential services," taxes may be an option, albeit a last option.

I have some long-term experience in this legislative process and I really don't think I benefit from the "advice" that you are offering.

Rather, I think your comments were authored by Chuck Muth and intended by you to be published for your own publicity purposes.

If you really "stand ready to work with your colleagues," I suggest you quit doing press releases, work with the majority of your own caucus, and be willing to listen to all sides of those issues. A closed mind will not help us reach the compromises that, whether you accept it or not, are part of the legislative process.

In the future, if you want to give me a message or talk with me, be a man and come and see me in person. I'll be more than willing to discuss these matters.

Senator Bill Raggio.