If you give those same students a month, they’ll take the full month.
Same goes for politicians spending your money. If you give them a dollar, they’ll spend the full dollar. Give them five dollars, they’ll spend the full five dollars. Give them $7.3 billion and they’ll spend the full $7.3 billion.
To borrow a phrase, it’s the spending, stupid. And the only way to keep the politicians from spending more of your money is to stop giving them more of your money in the first place.
Fortunately, back in the 1990’s Nevada voters approved a tax restraint law that requires legislators in Carson City to get a 2/3 super-majority vote to raise taxes and take more of your money.
Unfortunately, liberals have a found a loophole in the law. Knowing how difficult it now is to pass a tax hike in the Legislature, they’ve begun to shift tax hikes to the ballot box, where 50.1 percent of voters can vote to raise taxes on the other 49.9 percent of us.
To close this loophole, conservative Assemblywoman Jill Dickman (R-Washoe) has introduced Assembly Joint Resolution 8 which would “amend the Nevada Constitution to require that an initiative petition which creates, generates or increases any public revenue be approved by the affirmative vote of not less than two-thirds of the voters voting on the question.”
The Dickman Tax Restraint Initiative is a necessary check on the insatiable appetite of liberals in both parties who insist they know how to spend your money better than you do.
It would also close the loophole sneaky legislators have found whereby they can circumvent the existing tax restraint law by voting to place tax hikes on the ballot without going through the trouble and expense of gathering the requisite number of signatures otherwise required by citizens to put an issue on the ballot.
The Dickman Tax Restraint Initiative would make it far more difficult to put tax hikes on the ballot and far more expensive to mislead… er, lobby the electorate to pass them. It does not diminish the average voter’s power to defeat tax hikes sponsored by deep-pocketed special interests; it enhances it.
Lastly, an argument has been made that it’s one thing to handcuff the Legislature with the 2/3 super-majority requirement, but that a majority of the electorate should be sufficient to exercise the will of the people. But that argument argues against itself.
If a majority of voters vote to require a 2/3 super-majority of voters to approve tax hikes on the ballot, THAT’S the will of the people. So let it be written; so let it be done.
* * * * *
As the caucus turns
I gotta say, after being screwed royally by what’s passing for “leadership” in the Republican Assembly Caucus before the start of the session, conservatives have done their best to accept the reality of their situation and have been publicly cooperative and generally muted about how Speaker-of-the-Weak John Hambrick and Speaker-in-Reality Paul Anderson have managed (or mismanaged, as the case may be) the session so far.
But you can only push, pull, bully and threaten people so far before they reach the breaking point.
Freshman Assemblywoman Victoria Seaman (R-Clark) reached that point this week. The long and short of it is this: Seaman had a bill that she put a lot of time and effort into. Judiciary Chairman Ira Hansen (R-Washoe) killed it by not even bringing it up for a committee vote before the deadline last Friday.
An exchange of angry words then occurred in his office during which Hansen said to Seaman something to the effect of “If you were a man I’d punch you in the face.” Sexist!
I mean, if Hansen would punch drama-queen Assemblyman Chris “Let’s Make a Deal” Edwards in the face, why should he treat Ms. Seaman differently just because she’s a woman, right? Whatever happened to gender equality? But I digress.
In any event, Seaman privately took her beef with Hansen to the entire caucus on Tuesday, reading a prepared statement detailing what Hansen did and said.
Caucus leaders then assured her they were going to handle the situation and put out a public statement condemning Hansen’s use of threatening language and his general bullying behavior.
But as is par for this lame course, the statement put out late Thursday night was nothing more than Grade A political pabulum that not only didn’t yank up Hansen by the britches, but actually left open whether it was Hansen or Seaman herself who perpetrated the inappropriate behavior!
In fact, I’m told Seaman wasn’t even given the courtesy of seeing the release before the caucus leaders leaked it to Jon Ralston (D-UI), Nevada’s #2 liberal blogger-with-a-taxpayer-
Realizing that playing nice in the sandbox and working through “proper” channels didn’t get her doodley-squat, Seaman then issued her own response to the caucus leaders’ response to Hansen’s behavior.
“Frankly, nothing short of a public apology from Chairman Hansen for using such threatening and inappropriate language is acceptable,”
Seaman wrote. “And under the circumstances I ask our caucus leaders to right this wrong by finding a way to bring my bill to the floor of the Assembly for consideration.”
Something tells me the toothpaste is now out of the tube and all the governor’s horses and all the governor’s men ain’t gonna be able to put it back in.
* * * * *
Chuck Muth is president of Citizen Outreach, a non-profit public policy grassroots advocacy organization. He may be reached by email at firstname.lastname@example.org.