I attended a very interesting “hearing” on Friday at the offices of the Nevada Motor Transport Association in Reno.
Several Republican California state legislators came over the hill to hear from companies who had moved away from California. A few hours was spent listening to testimony from several entrepreneurs, most of whom had relocated to Northern Nevada.
What was most interesting to me was that while taxes certainly came up from time to time, most of the complaints centered around high workers comp costs, and the extraordinary regulatory hurdles and burdens put in place by various California governmental entities. A common theme was the antagonistic attitude of the bureaucrats toward business owners, rather than a “how can I help you comply” approach.
We heard tales of agents demanding to inspect a closed plant on Good Friday, of enforcement officials bringing news camera crews with them to “offending” businesses, of crushing regulations that threatened to drive job producers out of business.
We then learned about the magnet that is the State of Nevada. One participant stated that Nevada is the closest thing to California without being in California. They are the 7th largest economy in the world and both of our major cities sit on two of the major interstate highway corridors from California. Our neighbor is a huge market, filled with people who need goods and services.
Several participants disclosed the fact that it is cheaper to transport goods between Northern Nevada and Southern California than it is between points in Northern and Southern California! California’s tariff laws are the cause of this disparity.
Finally, one participant, who has a business in the Carson Valley, discussed the warm reception he received from the local fire marshal when he arrived in Nevada. The fire marshal arrived and wanted to learn about his business, what it manufactures, and how to train his people to deal with the type of fire that could potentially occur there!
All of the speakers confirmed that they were never notified by any officials in California to inquire as to why they were leaving and how they could assist in enticing them to stay.
The attendees received a warning from the California elected delegation in attendance.
“Nevada, you’re next!” they stated. “Don’t let what happened to us, happen to you.”
I could only think of the various workers comp bills and other anti-business legislation flying around Carson City right now. It was a shame that there were no elected Nevada officials in attendance to hear the warning.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Deja vu
It’s déjà vu time at the legislature. Yesterday was the deadline for all non-exempt bills to get through their house of origin. In other words, all Assembly bills had to be passed and sent to the Senate and vice-versa or they died.
This means that there aren’t really any brand new bills to follow and testify on. So, all of the various workers comp bills, health insurance mandate bills, and others that the Chamber testified against in one house, we are doing so again in the second.
Today, that included AB 511, which was heard in Senate Commerce and Labor. This is the bill that would gut the exclusive remedy provisions of workers comp and allow for employees to have a private right of action against insurance companies. Same group of folks testified in favor, same opposed.
I did get to testify in favor of SB 275 again. Today it was in Senate Finance; a few weeks ago it was in Senate Health and Education. This bill is exempt, which means it has some type of fiscal note attached to it and needs to be examined by the money committees. This is the bill that Senator Horsford has proposed which would create a SAGE-type commission for the education system.
This means that there aren’t really any brand new bills to follow and testify on. So, all of the various workers comp bills, health insurance mandate bills, and others that the Chamber testified against in one house, we are doing so again in the second.
Today, that included AB 511, which was heard in Senate Commerce and Labor. This is the bill that would gut the exclusive remedy provisions of workers comp and allow for employees to have a private right of action against insurance companies. Same group of folks testified in favor, same opposed.
I did get to testify in favor of SB 275 again. Today it was in Senate Finance; a few weeks ago it was in Senate Health and Education. This bill is exempt, which means it has some type of fiscal note attached to it and needs to be examined by the money committees. This is the bill that Senator Horsford has proposed which would create a SAGE-type commission for the education system.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Tax Study
This week brings a change of pace, as the deadline for bills to survive through their committee of origin passed on Friday. More than 260 bills officially died on Friday, but you never know when some issues may rise from the dead! The next deadline is April 21, when all bills have to get through their first house before traveling to the other chamber. This week will be heavy on floor sessions, but light on committee hearings.
I did testify in support of SB 399 in the Senate Finance Committee this morning. This bill would authorize a study of Nevada’s tax structure to take place over the interim between the 2009 and 2011 sessions. It would delve into the proper allocations of tax revenue between state and local governments and between the local governments themselves.
I was honored to sit at the table next to Daryl Drake, a Chamber Board member and someone whose wisdom I rely on a lot. Daryl presented some very poignant ideas on the subject and I believe his testimony was well-received.
I pointed to page two of the Agenda for Economic Vitality, which states our support for a comprehensive study of the kind that this bill proposes.
I also tied it to the SAGE Commission’s work, by stating that once the Legislature has a complete picture of how we spend AND receive our tax revenues, they will be able to make more informed decisions.
Greg Peek, representing the Builder’s Association of Northern Nevada, followed my comments with a plea for SB 399 to include a study of removing depreciation of real property at the point of sale. The Chamber supports examination of that issue as well.
I did testify in support of SB 399 in the Senate Finance Committee this morning. This bill would authorize a study of Nevada’s tax structure to take place over the interim between the 2009 and 2011 sessions. It would delve into the proper allocations of tax revenue between state and local governments and between the local governments themselves.
I was honored to sit at the table next to Daryl Drake, a Chamber Board member and someone whose wisdom I rely on a lot. Daryl presented some very poignant ideas on the subject and I believe his testimony was well-received.
I pointed to page two of the Agenda for Economic Vitality, which states our support for a comprehensive study of the kind that this bill proposes.
I also tied it to the SAGE Commission’s work, by stating that once the Legislature has a complete picture of how we spend AND receive our tax revenues, they will be able to make more informed decisions.
Greg Peek, representing the Builder’s Association of Northern Nevada, followed my comments with a plea for SB 399 to include a study of removing depreciation of real property at the point of sale. The Chamber supports examination of that issue as well.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
A Tax on Trucks is a Tax on You
The Senate Taxation Committee met for about six hours today to take up several bills.
I was there to testify against SB 368, which, originally, was intended to implement a weight-distance tax on Nevada’s trucking industry.
Chairman Bob Coffin, who introduced the bill, offered an amendment at the beginning of the hearing that gutted the bill and instead would impose a diesel tax increase of 12 cents per gallon and would institute a study of the weight-distance tax.
While the amended version is much better than the original bill that is linked above, the Chamber still opposes any single-industry taxes. Especially a tax that will make everything that we buy more expensive, including groceries.
90% of all of the goods that we consume in Nevada arrive in a truck. Any tax increase on moving those goods will be passed down and be included in the final purchase price of that good.
Lance Gilman is building the largest industrial park in the world, the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center, in Storey County. That project could allow for Northern Nevada to become a warehouse, logistics, and transportation hub. We must be careful about doing anything that will make it more expensive to ship things in and out of here.
Most of the hearing centered on various studies that NDOT had undertaken over the last few decades that claim that trucks do not pay their fair share of road costs. The Nevada Motor Transport Association, however, hired two university professors who produced their own study that refuted NDOT.
Due to the late hour, I was forced to be brief in my testimony. I pointed out that the Chamber supports broad, user-based funding for roads, but that we oppose singling out any industry for taxation.
I then referred to our strong support for SB 201, the implementing bill of the RTC-5 ballot question. That would index gas taxes for ALL users of the roads, passenger cars and trucks. The voters were also given a specific list of projects that would be funded with the new revenue.
The Chamber welcomes a conversation on potential solutions for a statewide funding plan, but we believe that all highway users should shoulder the burden.
The Committee voted to “indefinitely postpone” the bill, as everyone is waiting for a final tax package at the end of the session.
I was there to testify against SB 368, which, originally, was intended to implement a weight-distance tax on Nevada’s trucking industry.
Chairman Bob Coffin, who introduced the bill, offered an amendment at the beginning of the hearing that gutted the bill and instead would impose a diesel tax increase of 12 cents per gallon and would institute a study of the weight-distance tax.
While the amended version is much better than the original bill that is linked above, the Chamber still opposes any single-industry taxes. Especially a tax that will make everything that we buy more expensive, including groceries.
90% of all of the goods that we consume in Nevada arrive in a truck. Any tax increase on moving those goods will be passed down and be included in the final purchase price of that good.
Lance Gilman is building the largest industrial park in the world, the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center, in Storey County. That project could allow for Northern Nevada to become a warehouse, logistics, and transportation hub. We must be careful about doing anything that will make it more expensive to ship things in and out of here.
Most of the hearing centered on various studies that NDOT had undertaken over the last few decades that claim that trucks do not pay their fair share of road costs. The Nevada Motor Transport Association, however, hired two university professors who produced their own study that refuted NDOT.
Due to the late hour, I was forced to be brief in my testimony. I pointed out that the Chamber supports broad, user-based funding for roads, but that we oppose singling out any industry for taxation.
I then referred to our strong support for SB 201, the implementing bill of the RTC-5 ballot question. That would index gas taxes for ALL users of the roads, passenger cars and trucks. The voters were also given a specific list of projects that would be funded with the new revenue.
The Chamber welcomes a conversation on potential solutions for a statewide funding plan, but we believe that all highway users should shoulder the burden.
The Committee voted to “indefinitely postpone” the bill, as everyone is waiting for a final tax package at the end of the session.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
The Costs of Doing Business
Several more workers comp bills were considered this week. I went to the table in opposition to two of them specifically.
The first, AB 511, came up on Monday in Assembly Commerce and Labor. This bill would allow employees to sue their employer for “bad faith” claims outside of the workers comp system. Current law specifies that the workers comp system is the “exclusive remedy” for employees and does not allow lawsuits for bad faith.
The second bill, SB 366, was heard in Senate Commerce and Labor today. Committee Chair Maggie Carlton amended the original bill so that it does not seem nearly as onerous as the original, which would have required employers to prove that an accident did not happen at work. Current law requires the employee to prove that it did. Unless an employer has video cameras that cover every inch of his property and they are running 24/7, there is no way for him to definitively prove that something did not happen.
Of course, any time you introduce the potential for increased and frivolous lawsuits into the system, costs WILL go up. Just as the med-mal discussion below, these lawsuits would be factored into the costs of workers comp policies and will have to be paid for by all Nevada employers.
Unlike health insurance coverage, employers are required to have workers comp insurance. The increased cost will have to come from somewhere. That may mean that a small employer can no longer afford health insurance for his employees, or those employees will have to pay more for their health coverage, or those employees may not have a place to work anymore!
To use a cliché, these bills and the med-mal issue seem to throw the baby out with the bath water. They try to attack the problem of bad actors by punishing everybody in the system. If there are a few insurance companies who are not treating workers comp claims with the seriousness that they deserve, then we should beef up our regulatory agencies to ensure that they do.
We must find a way to punish the bad folks, without sinking everybody else.
Once concern that several of the business lobbyists in the building have is that there is no holistic view of bills and issues that could negatively affect business.
We are dealing with health care coverage mandates, workers comp, med-mal, and whatever potential tax package is being cooked up. Each bill by itself may not be that bad, but all of the bills taken cumulatively spell trouble.
I have started making the same point each time I testify on one of these issues: Our members cannot take much more. Please do not put each of these bills into a separate bubble. We must look at all of these issues as a whole and ensure that we do not do more harm than good.
The first, AB 511, came up on Monday in Assembly Commerce and Labor. This bill would allow employees to sue their employer for “bad faith” claims outside of the workers comp system. Current law specifies that the workers comp system is the “exclusive remedy” for employees and does not allow lawsuits for bad faith.
The second bill, SB 366, was heard in Senate Commerce and Labor today. Committee Chair Maggie Carlton amended the original bill so that it does not seem nearly as onerous as the original, which would have required employers to prove that an accident did not happen at work. Current law requires the employee to prove that it did. Unless an employer has video cameras that cover every inch of his property and they are running 24/7, there is no way for him to definitively prove that something did not happen.
Of course, any time you introduce the potential for increased and frivolous lawsuits into the system, costs WILL go up. Just as the med-mal discussion below, these lawsuits would be factored into the costs of workers comp policies and will have to be paid for by all Nevada employers.
Unlike health insurance coverage, employers are required to have workers comp insurance. The increased cost will have to come from somewhere. That may mean that a small employer can no longer afford health insurance for his employees, or those employees will have to pay more for their health coverage, or those employees may not have a place to work anymore!
To use a cliché, these bills and the med-mal issue seem to throw the baby out with the bath water. They try to attack the problem of bad actors by punishing everybody in the system. If there are a few insurance companies who are not treating workers comp claims with the seriousness that they deserve, then we should beef up our regulatory agencies to ensure that they do.
We must find a way to punish the bad folks, without sinking everybody else.
Once concern that several of the business lobbyists in the building have is that there is no holistic view of bills and issues that could negatively affect business.
We are dealing with health care coverage mandates, workers comp, med-mal, and whatever potential tax package is being cooked up. Each bill by itself may not be that bad, but all of the bills taken cumulatively spell trouble.
I have started making the same point each time I testify on one of these issues: Our members cannot take much more. Please do not put each of these bills into a separate bubble. We must look at all of these issues as a whole and ensure that we do not do more harm than good.
Paper or.....
Today was plastic bag day, as I spent several hours in the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee waiting for SB 397 to come up.
SB 397, proposed by Commerce and Labor Chair Maggie Carlton, would require all retail stores to charge 10 cents per plastic bag given out until July 2011, when all non-biodegradable plastic bags would be outlawed in the State of Nevada.
Senator Carlton’s purpose for introducing the bill was to deal with all of the plastic bag litter that she has encountered. Her contention is that there is not a strong enough recycling effort for these bags and far too many of them are getting thrown away.
While there were two people that rose to speak in support of the bill, the vast majority of those who had signed in opposed it.
I followed representatives from the retail association, the petroleum marketers, and the manufacturers. So, while I had several points jotted down that I had planned to make, I ended up just echoing the comments before mine and relayed to the Committee some of the efforts the Chamber has made in regard to increasing the use of recycling.
The main points against a ban on plastic bags are as follows:
1. It is a consumer choice issue. Consumers should be able to decide what type of grocery bag they want and retailers should be able to meet the demands of their customers.
2. Paper and reusable bags are already available at most of our retailers. Those same retailers offer large bins in the front of every store in which shoppers can deposit plastic bags for recycling.
3. Over 90% of Americans reuse their plastic bags.
4. Paper bags are more expensive to produce and buy than plastic bags. They are heavier and take more trucks to deliver. They cause more pollution and greenhouse gases and take up more room in our landfills.
5. Reusable bags are much more expensive than paper or plastic and could cause health issues if not cleaned between uses. Retailers are also concerned about theft with several opaque bags being brought in and out of the store.
6. Trex, a large employer in Fernley, takes used plastic bags and makes fence and decking material out of them. They are useful and they provide jobs.
Finally, a new fee or ban on plastic bags will make every trip to the grocery store more expensive.
Not exactly the type of bill we need in the type of economic environment we have.
SB 397, proposed by Commerce and Labor Chair Maggie Carlton, would require all retail stores to charge 10 cents per plastic bag given out until July 2011, when all non-biodegradable plastic bags would be outlawed in the State of Nevada.
Senator Carlton’s purpose for introducing the bill was to deal with all of the plastic bag litter that she has encountered. Her contention is that there is not a strong enough recycling effort for these bags and far too many of them are getting thrown away.
While there were two people that rose to speak in support of the bill, the vast majority of those who had signed in opposed it.
I followed representatives from the retail association, the petroleum marketers, and the manufacturers. So, while I had several points jotted down that I had planned to make, I ended up just echoing the comments before mine and relayed to the Committee some of the efforts the Chamber has made in regard to increasing the use of recycling.
The main points against a ban on plastic bags are as follows:
1. It is a consumer choice issue. Consumers should be able to decide what type of grocery bag they want and retailers should be able to meet the demands of their customers.
2. Paper and reusable bags are already available at most of our retailers. Those same retailers offer large bins in the front of every store in which shoppers can deposit plastic bags for recycling.
3. Over 90% of Americans reuse their plastic bags.
4. Paper bags are more expensive to produce and buy than plastic bags. They are heavier and take more trucks to deliver. They cause more pollution and greenhouse gases and take up more room in our landfills.
5. Reusable bags are much more expensive than paper or plastic and could cause health issues if not cleaned between uses. Retailers are also concerned about theft with several opaque bags being brought in and out of the store.
6. Trex, a large employer in Fernley, takes used plastic bags and makes fence and decking material out of them. They are useful and they provide jobs.
Finally, a new fee or ban on plastic bags will make every trip to the grocery store more expensive.
Not exactly the type of bill we need in the type of economic environment we have.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Kick Our Doctors Out of Nevada
AB 495, heard in Assemblyman Bernie Anderson’s Judiciary Committee, was an all-day affair. The hearing started at 8 am with another bill, then proceeded for three hours until the floor session interrupted the proceedings. The Committee then reconvened at 6:30 pm to hear the rest of AB 495 and then still had another bill to hear after that!
AB 495 would roll back the med-mal reforms that almost 60% of Nevada voters approved back in 2004. The bill, as introduced, would repeal the limit on “non-economic” damages (pain and suffering) and would extend some of the time frames that plaintiffs have to file a claim.
When the hearing opened, the Nevada Justice Association (Justice League?) presented an amendment that would keep most of the current law, but would allow a verdict of “gross negligence” to be used to get around the non-economic damage cap.
We know that prior to 2004, physicians’ insurance rates were rapidly increasing, doctors were threatening to leave our state, and a trauma center in Las Vegas actually closed due to a lack of available specialists.
Since 2004, rates have decreased by as much as 30%, Nevadans have saved almost $400 million a year, and doctors are staying put. Even California has stricter caps on lawsuits than we do!
Of course, the reason we are having these discussions is the disgusting endoscopy clinic scandals that occurred last year. This is a perfect example of a few very bad actors causing havoc for all of the good doctors in our state.
This bill attempts to deal with the few by punishing everyone.
The Chamber testified that if the insurance rates of doctors go up, the insurance rates of EVERYONE goes up. The threat of lawsuits will not increase just the insurance rates of bad doctors, it will increase the rates for every doctor, who will then pass on the cost to YOU.
This bill allows trial attorneys to run amok and put right back where we were at the beginning of this decade.
We need to figure out a way to punish the bad actors and protect the public. The Legislature has been diligently working on increased inspection and review requirements. One option is to drastically increase criminal fines on doctors and nurses who, for instance, reuse needles, take their licenses away, and maybe even put them in jail.
Which is a greater deterrent? Potential jail time or a payout by your insurance company?
Let’s punish the bad doctors without burdening the entire state with higher insurance costs and provider shortages.
AB 495 would roll back the med-mal reforms that almost 60% of Nevada voters approved back in 2004. The bill, as introduced, would repeal the limit on “non-economic” damages (pain and suffering) and would extend some of the time frames that plaintiffs have to file a claim.
When the hearing opened, the Nevada Justice Association (Justice League?) presented an amendment that would keep most of the current law, but would allow a verdict of “gross negligence” to be used to get around the non-economic damage cap.
We know that prior to 2004, physicians’ insurance rates were rapidly increasing, doctors were threatening to leave our state, and a trauma center in Las Vegas actually closed due to a lack of available specialists.
Since 2004, rates have decreased by as much as 30%, Nevadans have saved almost $400 million a year, and doctors are staying put. Even California has stricter caps on lawsuits than we do!
Of course, the reason we are having these discussions is the disgusting endoscopy clinic scandals that occurred last year. This is a perfect example of a few very bad actors causing havoc for all of the good doctors in our state.
This bill attempts to deal with the few by punishing everyone.
The Chamber testified that if the insurance rates of doctors go up, the insurance rates of EVERYONE goes up. The threat of lawsuits will not increase just the insurance rates of bad doctors, it will increase the rates for every doctor, who will then pass on the cost to YOU.
This bill allows trial attorneys to run amok and put right back where we were at the beginning of this decade.
We need to figure out a way to punish the bad actors and protect the public. The Legislature has been diligently working on increased inspection and review requirements. One option is to drastically increase criminal fines on doctors and nurses who, for instance, reuse needles, take their licenses away, and maybe even put them in jail.
Which is a greater deterrent? Potential jail time or a payout by your insurance company?
Let’s punish the bad doctors without burdening the entire state with higher insurance costs and provider shortages.
Friday, April 3, 2009
This is the end of a very long day that capped off a very long week.
Today found me testifying four different times in four different committees.
Since the Weekly Report e-mail already came out, I won’t rehash all of that.
But I should have added that the Senate Finance Committee heard SB 367 this morning, which has been introduced by the Governor. This bill comes directly from the SAGE Commission and deals with public employee retirement system (PERS) reform.
As you know, that is one of the main issues on our long-term spending reform agenda.
I testified in strong support of this bill and stated that the Reno Sparks Chamber of Commerce will not support any tax increases unless and until long-term spending reforms are implemented.
The Committee took no action on the bill today.
Up next week: gutting the voter-approved medical malpractice reforms on Monday, a slew of workers comp bills all week, a ban on plastic grocery bags on Wednesday, and Friday brings the deadline for all non-exempt bills to get through their first committee.
Today found me testifying four different times in four different committees.
Since the Weekly Report e-mail already came out, I won’t rehash all of that.
But I should have added that the Senate Finance Committee heard SB 367 this morning, which has been introduced by the Governor. This bill comes directly from the SAGE Commission and deals with public employee retirement system (PERS) reform.
As you know, that is one of the main issues on our long-term spending reform agenda.
I testified in strong support of this bill and stated that the Reno Sparks Chamber of Commerce will not support any tax increases unless and until long-term spending reforms are implemented.
The Committee took no action on the bill today.
Up next week: gutting the voter-approved medical malpractice reforms on Monday, a slew of workers comp bills all week, a ban on plastic grocery bags on Wednesday, and Friday brings the deadline for all non-exempt bills to get through their first committee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
