New GOP Governor wants casinos to pay more

   The recently-elected conservative Republican Governor said yesterday:  "Are these casino operators, who are going to make a lot of money off the state, are they willing to do a little bit to help us in the tough budget times? Are they willing to give us a little more money to help our schools? ...”

   And just what tax structure wasn’t high enough?  Casino operators pay $50 million each in state license fees and a 33% tax on gross revenue – PLUS the casinos pay the state’s regular business activities tax based on gross receipts - before paying out winnings.  However, this still isn’t adequate for the state’s pro-business Governor. 

    Gov. John Kasich (former Congressman & former Fox News Commentator) made those comments about the companies that are now establishing casinos in Columbus, Toledo, Cleveland and Cincinnati, Ohio. 

   How does Nevada’s recently-elected conservative Republican Governor feel about whether gaming is taxed adequately with a maximum tax of 6.75% on gross gaming revenue and no business activity tax?

Nevada still projected to gain new congressional seat for 2012

 This morning, Politico reported that the most up-to-date projections of the 2010 census data, reconfirm the likelihood that Nevada will gain a 4^th Congressional seat by next election.  Many locals have been concerned that, with the tide of population leaving Nevada the last two years, we wouldn’t have grown enough during the past decade to qualify.  However, it appears that Nevada, along with Utah, Arizona and Washington, will gain one additional seat.  Meanwhile, Michigan and a bunch of Midwest states lose a seat; New York and Ohio, lose 2.  While these estimates likely will be close to the official outcome, there are no guarantees until the Census Bureau’s scheduled announcement in late December of the final Census population totals for the 50 states.

Blowin’ In the Wind

  Beauty is truly in the eyes of the beholder.  I have been going through the Nevada papers which came the last few weeks while I was traveling, and was astounded to read of the Searchlight residents who showed up to protest the location of a wind power farm near their community.  Their greatest concern seemed to center around how these turbines would destroy the “scenic beauty” of Searchlight.

 My good son, Conor, and I visited rural Iowa a couple of weeks ago and were blown away (pun intended) by the hundreds of beautiful turbines that were scattered across their picturesque farmland.  The three curved blades rotating slowly in a summer breeze could easily be mistaken for pieces of art.

 These striking and graceful devices not only were helping make our country stronger and more energy independent, they added to – not detracted from - the scenery of that charming farm state.

 Iowa ranks second in the nation in wind energy capacity.  A recent report by the American Wind Energy Association shows about 7 percent of Iowa's power now comes from the wind. That's enough to power the equivalent of 900,000 homes.  Iowa also leads the country in attracting wind turbine companies, with three turbine manufacturers and one blade manufacturer having opened plants in the state.  They have created good, well-paying jobs in small, rural communities that otherwise had little hope.

If the fine conservative rural folks of Iowa get it – why don’t the residents of God-forsaken Searchlight understand this opportunity?

The answer my friend, is blowin’ in the wind –

The answer is blowin’ in the wind.

All I hear is the sizzle

   A few years back, a political candidate did a brilliant job in a televised debate by using the slogan from a popular Wendy’s TV ad.  His opponent had spoken of having “new ideas” - he leaned forward and said, "When I hear your new ideas, I'm reminded of that ad: 'Where's the beef?'"

   Being a policy nerd, I actually had looked forward to reading Rory Reid’s 30-page vision for Nevada:  “Virtual Crossroads.”

   I regret to report that, after reviewing it in detail, I not only don’t see the beef – I don’t see the bun – all I hear is the sizzle.

   While it presents a sensible, generally-accepted diagnosis of the problems Nevada faces – it offers no substantive prescription for a cure.

   Sure, it points in a general direction, but that is about as useful as a doctor telling you to “eat well; get plenty of rest; and drink lots of fluids.” 

   The “specifics” he quotes from it are usually:

 ·    “we need a long-term plan for infrastructure rebuilding”  Sure. Yet, the fundamental problem isn’t that we need more plans drawn up - the Nevada Department of Transportation, as well as each county and city transportation department, have file cabinets full of plans.  We need the resources and the commitment to move forward now.  Enough of this planning, already.  Let’s salvage our infrastructure before it deteriorates any further – and let’s put people to work.  Now – not after another round of planning.

 ·    “perform performance review of state government to reduce wasteful spending”  That’s a rather obvious observation.  Every agency of state government has been repeatedly doing that.  It is not that more couldn’t be done.  But, the impression that we can fund adequate services in Nevada by just cutting out the “fat” in the state government is totally naive and unrealistic.  This is unproductive, cynical pandering for votes.  A real leader tells it like it is.

 ·    “provide tax credits to businesses who hire new workers”   Here the vision statement points to a recent Colorado initiative to give businesses that create at least 20 new jobs a 50% credit for the taxes paid on each new employee.  With their system, that equals a credit of about 3.8% - which is a reasonable savings.  However, in Nevada, our payroll tax is only 0.5% - cutting that 50% would give a typical per-job savings of $50 per year.  Show me any company that will hire a new person because of a fifty-dollar savings!  This is not how you transform our economy - this is fluff.

   I could go on-and-on critiquing each section.  Many simply draw the practical question:  “But where is the money for this going to come from?” to which you won’t find any answers.  At best, you hear the old refrain “Growth will pay for Growth.”  If we haven’t learned anything in this painful economic slowdown, haven’t we learned that is not true?  It’s a Ponzi scheme – a few did well - and the rest of us taxpayers are left on the hook.

   Ok, we are at a Virtual Crossroads (who doubts that?) -- but the question is: “how should we move forward?”  Sizzle is not an acceptable answer.

Evaluate use of church property tax exemptions

 While every penny of funds that provide “enrichment” to the educational system is being squeezed out of the budget, there is one-half billion dollars in untaxed “church” property in Clark County, alone ($509,040,418 of Assessed Value exempted in FY 2009-2010)

 For every dollar which the government does not collect on these properties, it must make up for by collecting it from taxpayers.  This exemption has grown from a well-intentioned generosity by early lawmakers into a vast tax expenditure.  If this property were on the tax role, the schools and local units of government in Clark County would split an additional $18 million per year.  Any law that lowers a particular property owner’s tax liability has no different effect than a law that requires a direct payment to that property owner.

The basic facts on which properties receive this exemption – and why – should be compiled, made public and evaluated.  Then, explicit policy decisions must be made as to how much exemption should be given; to whom; and for how long. 

Nevada currently falls far short of even compiling this type of statistics, doing less than virtually any other state to make objective data available about where tax breaks are actually going and how much they costs.  This information can help us all - policymakers and taxpayers – to achieve reasonable oversight of these large tax expenditures.