I testified in opposition to AB 138 today in the Assembly Transportation Committee.
This bill, proposed by Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, would mandate that train engines in Nevada have two employees on board when traveling down a main rail line. The argument in favor of this proposal is that public safety demands it.
While I am certainly sympathetic to public safety concerns, I am worried about the precedent this sets for the business community as a whole. What’s to stop the Legislature from mandating two drivers per 18-wheeler? Or two people in the restaurant kitchen to make sure that the food is not contaminated? (Did I just create a bill draft?)
We all know what happened to the cost of our groceries as gas and diesel prices went up dramatically last year. This occurred because most of the goods that we consume are shipped to us by road or rail vehicles. Any new costly regulation, such as minimum staffing requirements, increases the costs of the goods that we all use. Given that most other states do not have this requirement, this could place Nevada at a competitive disadvantage.
The Legislature should let the railroads run the railroads.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Biting the Hand that Feeds You
Writing this a day after the marathon Senate Government Affairs hearing on public employee salaries and benefits.
A packed hearing room heard testimony from the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce and the numbers gurus that were hired to study various state budget issues. You can find those studies HERE.
After that, the hearing went downhill fast. Union reps from the AFL-CIO, Metro police, firefighters, and teachers each came forward to present their case.
Choosing to bite the hand that feeds them, most of the speakers proceeded to bash the chambers of commerce and our members. We learned that the private sector is responsible for all of the world’s problems and we really have no right to even propose a reform agenda. (What right do we have to actually walk inside these hallowed halls and voice concern about where our tax dollars go?)
Chamber members also, apparently, do not pay enough in taxes.
When asked by Senator Raggio if the public employee collective bargaining process should be more transparent to the public (i.e., the employer), the unions stated no. (Everything is just fine. Trust us).
After all of the emotional outbursts, I stepped forward with two Chamber members to try to bring the discussion back to the world that most of our members live in. One member described the millions of dollars that his business has lost over the last year. The 150 employees that have been laid off. The struggle to provide health benefits. Having to bid jobs below cost just to get work. The outrageous prevailing wage black hole where our tax dollars disappear.
How many private sector businesses still offer defined benefit plans? How many people in the private sector can retire at age 50 and receive 75% of their highest salary level for life? How many of those same retirees receive health care benefits from their previous employer?
Maybe those who have been employed by the auto manufacturers do.
Can the State of Nevada afford to operate like Detroit?
And I'm still waiting for my COLA...
A packed hearing room heard testimony from the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce and the numbers gurus that were hired to study various state budget issues. You can find those studies HERE.
After that, the hearing went downhill fast. Union reps from the AFL-CIO, Metro police, firefighters, and teachers each came forward to present their case.
Choosing to bite the hand that feeds them, most of the speakers proceeded to bash the chambers of commerce and our members. We learned that the private sector is responsible for all of the world’s problems and we really have no right to even propose a reform agenda. (What right do we have to actually walk inside these hallowed halls and voice concern about where our tax dollars go?)
Chamber members also, apparently, do not pay enough in taxes.
When asked by Senator Raggio if the public employee collective bargaining process should be more transparent to the public (i.e., the employer), the unions stated no. (Everything is just fine. Trust us).
After all of the emotional outbursts, I stepped forward with two Chamber members to try to bring the discussion back to the world that most of our members live in. One member described the millions of dollars that his business has lost over the last year. The 150 employees that have been laid off. The struggle to provide health benefits. Having to bid jobs below cost just to get work. The outrageous prevailing wage black hole where our tax dollars disappear.
How many private sector businesses still offer defined benefit plans? How many people in the private sector can retire at age 50 and receive 75% of their highest salary level for life? How many of those same retirees receive health care benefits from their previous employer?
Maybe those who have been employed by the auto manufacturers do.
Can the State of Nevada afford to operate like Detroit?
And I'm still waiting for my COLA...
Monday, February 23, 2009
It’s a busy Monday morning at the Legislative Building. 8 am found me in the Assembly Ways and Means Committee testifying in favor of AB 165, which is a bill that Speaker Buckley has put forward that would force the Legislature and the Governor to set aside an additional 1% of general fund revenue and place it in our rainy day fund.
As you know, the Chamber has presented a list of long-term spending priorities that, we argue, must be considered before tax increases are discussed. One of those priorities is the implementation of a binding spending cap and required reserve accounts. This bill is a good step in that direction and forces the Executive and Legislative branches to set aside money in the good times in order to stabilize the budget during the downtimes, such as the environment we now find ourselves in. It is vitally important that we not spend every dime we are told that we are going to get and, instead, set money aside for the future.
I also mentioned our support for a separate Education Stabilization Fund, which would ensure that any k-12 money that is left over at the end of a fiscal year should be set aside FOR EDUCATION and not revert back to the general fund.
I am now in the Senate Judiciary Committee room listening to testimony on S.J.R. 2, which is a Nevada Constitutional Amendment that Senator Bill Raggio has put forward. It would implement what is commonly known as the “Missouri Plan,” which would provide for the appointment of judges by the Governor instead of by popular election. The Governor would receive a list from a Selection Committee and would choose from that list. The argument in favor of this proposal is that judges should not have to run around and raise money for their campaigns, that it may present a perception of a conflict of interest.
This bill passed the 2007 Legislature and, if it passes this Session, will go before the voters in 2010.
While the Chamber does not have a position on this issue, it would be a dramatic change to our judicial system. What do you think?
As you know, the Chamber has presented a list of long-term spending priorities that, we argue, must be considered before tax increases are discussed. One of those priorities is the implementation of a binding spending cap and required reserve accounts. This bill is a good step in that direction and forces the Executive and Legislative branches to set aside money in the good times in order to stabilize the budget during the downtimes, such as the environment we now find ourselves in. It is vitally important that we not spend every dime we are told that we are going to get and, instead, set money aside for the future.
I also mentioned our support for a separate Education Stabilization Fund, which would ensure that any k-12 money that is left over at the end of a fiscal year should be set aside FOR EDUCATION and not revert back to the general fund.
I am now in the Senate Judiciary Committee room listening to testimony on S.J.R. 2, which is a Nevada Constitutional Amendment that Senator Bill Raggio has put forward. It would implement what is commonly known as the “Missouri Plan,” which would provide for the appointment of judges by the Governor instead of by popular election. The Governor would receive a list from a Selection Committee and would choose from that list. The argument in favor of this proposal is that judges should not have to run around and raise money for their campaigns, that it may present a perception of a conflict of interest.
This bill passed the 2007 Legislature and, if it passes this Session, will go before the voters in 2010.
While the Chamber does not have a position on this issue, it would be a dramatic change to our judicial system. What do you think?
Thursday, February 19, 2009
The Assembly and Senate Tax Committees are meeting in a joint session this afternoon to receive a report on the various tax abatements and exemptions that exist in Nevada state law. You can find a copy of the 294-page report HERE.
Assemblywomen Debbie Smith and Marilyn Kirkpatrick have been heavily involved in this issue over the interim. As the Legislature looks to plug a very large budget hole, every effort is being made to find dollars wherever possible.
The Chamber’s Agenda for Economic Vitality in Nevada states our support for “legislative review of all sales and other tax exemptions, abatements, and exclusions.” We want to ensure that all exemptions and abatements are fair, transparent, and fulfill their intended purpose.
The major issues that have cropped up recently are the STAR Bond districts that have been created in Washoe County. STAR Bond projects such as Cabela’s and Legends must generate a majority of their sales to out-of-state tourists.
Projects that are approved under the STAR Bond process are able to use 75% of the sales tax they generate for 15 years to pay back the bonds used to build the project.
One argument is that these various tax exemptions take needed money away from the school districts and other local governments.
The other side of that coin is that if properties like Cabela’s or Legends are exempted from 75% of the sales tax they generate, there is still the other 25% that did not exist before.
In other words, 25% of something is better than 100% of nothing. Neither of the properties mentioned above generated any sales tax prior to being built.
Assemblywoman Debbie Smith has concerns with any tax money being diverted away from our school districts.
The Chamber supports the use of STAR Bonds to attract tourist-oriented businesses. We do not oppose efforts to review and tighten up the process if necessary.
Assemblywomen Debbie Smith and Marilyn Kirkpatrick have been heavily involved in this issue over the interim. As the Legislature looks to plug a very large budget hole, every effort is being made to find dollars wherever possible.
The Chamber’s Agenda for Economic Vitality in Nevada states our support for “legislative review of all sales and other tax exemptions, abatements, and exclusions.” We want to ensure that all exemptions and abatements are fair, transparent, and fulfill their intended purpose.
The major issues that have cropped up recently are the STAR Bond districts that have been created in Washoe County. STAR Bond projects such as Cabela’s and Legends must generate a majority of their sales to out-of-state tourists.
Projects that are approved under the STAR Bond process are able to use 75% of the sales tax they generate for 15 years to pay back the bonds used to build the project.
One argument is that these various tax exemptions take needed money away from the school districts and other local governments.
The other side of that coin is that if properties like Cabela’s or Legends are exempted from 75% of the sales tax they generate, there is still the other 25% that did not exist before.
In other words, 25% of something is better than 100% of nothing. Neither of the properties mentioned above generated any sales tax prior to being built.
Assemblywoman Debbie Smith has concerns with any tax money being diverted away from our school districts.
The Chamber supports the use of STAR Bonds to attract tourist-oriented businesses. We do not oppose efforts to review and tighten up the process if necessary.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Trying this out for the first time. The goal of this blog is to keep you informed of events as they happen in Carson City.
I am sitting in on the Assembly Taxation Committee as they hear a presentation from Josh Hicks, the Governor's Chief of Staff. The topic is the "revenue enhancements" that are included in the Gov's budget. One of these enhancements is a reallocation of property tax revenues from those counties to the state general fund.
The Governor's office has argued that given the salary disparity between local and state government employees, the counties have the option of cutting salaries like the Gov has proposed for state employees. Of course, it was pointed out that those local government salaries are collectively bargained and are locked into labor contracts.
While the Legislature sometimes pretends that its hands are tied in regard to local government salaries, it is the Legislature that created NRS 288. That piece of Nevada law requires our county, city, and school district governments to deal with public employee unions. Yet, the state has exempted itself from these shackles. It is no wonder that local government salaries are higher than the state.
The tax committees have stated publicly that they are on a search for cash. One place they could look are the bank accounts of our public employee unions.
I am sitting in on the Assembly Taxation Committee as they hear a presentation from Josh Hicks, the Governor's Chief of Staff. The topic is the "revenue enhancements" that are included in the Gov's budget. One of these enhancements is a reallocation of property tax revenues from those counties to the state general fund.
The Governor's office has argued that given the salary disparity between local and state government employees, the counties have the option of cutting salaries like the Gov has proposed for state employees. Of course, it was pointed out that those local government salaries are collectively bargained and are locked into labor contracts.
While the Legislature sometimes pretends that its hands are tied in regard to local government salaries, it is the Legislature that created NRS 288. That piece of Nevada law requires our county, city, and school district governments to deal with public employee unions. Yet, the state has exempted itself from these shackles. It is no wonder that local government salaries are higher than the state.
The tax committees have stated publicly that they are on a search for cash. One place they could look are the bank accounts of our public employee unions.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Welcome!
Welcome to the Reno Sparks Chamber's Nevada Legislature Blog. Stay tuned, as we'll be keeping you informed of the latest developments down in Carson this legislative session.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
