Partisans on both sides lose credibility on tax sunset issue

Terrible idea, cried NPRI.

The anti-tax group wanted those taxes to sunset even if they left a $620 million hole in a $6.2 billion budget, a hole Sandoval said would be impossible to fill without extending those taxes another two years.

Not good enough, state Democrats whined.

They objected to Sandoval’s position he won’t raise further taxes in 2013. The Democrats want to pour more money into education. And curry favor with union supporters.

The most humorous reaction was from Sen. Michael Roberson, the likely leader of Republican senators in 2011. He zapped from his memory his vehement objection to those same taxes … and praised Sandoval for his leadership.

Equally laughable was Sandoval’s memory lapse that during his campaign in 2010, he said the $620 million taxes should be allowed to sunset because they would constitute a tax increase. That is, until the Nevada Supreme Court told the governor he couldn’t cover his budget by robbing from local governments to pay the state bills, his first failed balance-the-budget plan. Now he says extending sunsets is not a tax increase.

Once again, the ideologues forced me to reach out to the voice of reason on Nevada taxes, Carole Vilardo, president of the Nevada Taxpayers Association.

She knows more about the state’s tax structure than most of the 63 legislators who decide it. She has certainly dealt with it longer than they have, especially now that term limits ousted the majority of lawmakers with extensive budget experience.

NTA’s primary concern is about tax fairness and sound policy or “responsible government at a reasonable price.”

Vilardo pointed out some nuances. First, this will be the first performance-based budget, a positive change created through a cooperative effort between Sandoval and Assemblywoman Debbie Smith, D-Sparks. Assembly Bill 248 mandates that agencies set benchmarks and goals and be held accountable. It should save money.

Eliminating duplication of services, another goal of Sandoval and Smith, may also make more money available.

“I’ll applaud the governor,” Vilardo said. But she’s still hoping for revenue and expenditure changes that might mean some of those taxes may still sunset.

She explained that savings aren’t immediately realized. Some of the ideas from the Spending and Government Efficiency Commission she served on may create savings, but they aren’t instantaneous.

The Democrats will want to spend anything saved while NPRI, and some Republicans will fight for a reduction in taxes.

Because the Nevada Economic Forum doesn’t finalize its estimates of available revenues until December, and the economy seems to be slightly improving, that could mean more dollars from the existing taxes.

That makes the Democrats premature in their “not enough for education” campaign.

Frankly, if the governor making this announcement were a Democrat, the Democrats would be much more cautious and circumspect about this early reaction. But partisanship is with us always.

NPRI doesn’t care what Sandoval’s party is, claiming Sandoval’s decision is “bad policy and, if implemented, will have negative consequences.”

In my opinion, both the Democrats and NPRI are losing credibility by jumping the gun with predictable and knee-jerk reactions.

The governor is doing his job, plain and simple.

Will there be political ramifications? Of course.

Folks, the budget has to be built on some basic premises. Sandoval was about a month earlier than usual to give guidance to state agencies about the budgets they prepare. Now at least everyone involved knows the starting point, even if the place where they finish is vastly different.

It’s a vast improvement from the years of plenty when state agencies created fantasy wish lists for their proposed budgets.

Jane Ann Morrison’s column appears Monday, Thursday and Saturday. Email her at Jane@reviewjournal.com or call her at (702) 383-0275. She also blogs at lvrj.com/blogs/Morrison