Several items today…
I went to the testimony table twice today.
The first time was in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The bill in question is SB 167, which has been proposed by State Treasurer Kate Marshall. It deals with unclaimed property, which is a complicated subject that I won’t delve into here.
Chamber member IGT offered an amendment to the bill, which would protect businesses from invasive outside audits performed in the name of claiming unclaimed property. I signed in neutral on the bill itself and urged the committee to consider and support the amendment. I pointed out that anything we can do to make our unclaimed property laws less onerous and more business-friendly would have a positive affect on attracting new businesses and industries to our state.
During the 11 am floor session today, the Assembly unanimously passed AB 165, a bill sponsored by Speaker Buckley that would implement required transfers from the state’s general fund to the rainy day fund. In other words, the Governor and the Legislature would be forced to set aside funds in the boom times to assist us in the down times. I testified in favor of this bill a few weeks ago in the Assembly Ways and Means Committee, as it is one step in our long-term spending reform agenda. There are other bills of the same nature that have been proposed by other legislators and the Governor, so we anxiously await those proposals.
I spent most of the afternoon in the Assembly Commerce and Labor Committee. AB 167, which would mandate that all insurance policies cover acupuncture treatment (except those offered by large companies covered under the federal ERISA law and labor union plans).
The Chamber is opposed to ALL insurance mandates, as they end up driving up the cost of insurance coverage, hitting our small employers the hardest. That could result in even more people ending up uninsured, which nobody wants. This hearing certainly had a different feel than the autism hearing a few days ago. The room was mostly empty and acupuncture is not nearly as emotional of an issue. The argument was made that acupuncture treatment could actually lower health insurance costs. If that is the case, then the Chamber fully supports allowing our members, the employers, to make the decision on whether or not to cover it. Some of them may jump at the chance! But they should not be required to cover it.
Finally, the Committee held a hearing on AB 150, which would require tanning bed operators to be regulated for the first time by the State Board of Cosmetology. The bill includes new posting requirements, parental consent forms for minors, and a requirement that any employee who operates a tanning machine must be 18 years old.
I have not heard back from any of our tanning bed members, so the Chamber has no official position on this bill. I am concerned, however, that the requirements of this bill may be too onerous for a small business operator, a concern also voiced by Assemblyman Settelmeyer at the hearing. The Indoor Tanning Association did oppose the bill, claiming that most of these protections are in place and operable already.
If you are a tanning bed operator and have interest in this bill, shoot me an e-mail.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Room tax passes
As my friends Anjeanette Damon (RGJ) and Jon Ralston (Las Vegas Sun) have already reported, the Senate passed the 3% room tax increase this afternoon.
The vote was 16-5, with the no votes all coming from Republicans (Amodei, Cegavske, Hardy, McGinness, and Washington). The vote finally came a day after five hours of an off and on hearing was held on Monday. It was assumed as late as last night that there were not enough votes to pass the petition.
Most of the opponents of the bill complained that taxation should not be done by initiative petition, but through the legislative process. The Chamber could not agree more.
We opposed this bill when it appeared on the ballot last November in the form of WC-6. We said then that we have elected officials for a reason. We delegate decision making authority on taxes, spending, and other matters to our councilmen, commissioners, and state legislators. We do not live in a direct democracy. We live in a republic. (I have been informed that since the initiative petition process is outline in the Nevada State Constitution, that we do, in fact, have a form of direct democracy. So, I stand corrected. But it doesn't mean I have to like it!)
Even the supporters of this bill admitted that this is not the process that they would have preferred, that their hands were tied and could not improve the language.
The proponent of this measure (the teachers union) has been telling the Legislature that Nevada needs new "broad-based" tax sources that are more stable than our current revenue. (In other words, they support taxing businesses more.)
I fail to see how an increase in the room tax (a percentage of the total room rate, not a fixed dollar amount) meets this definition, but why let good policy get in the way of cold, hard cash?
At least room rates are stable right now, right?
After this biennium, the money raised from this measure will go to teacher salaries and to improve student achievement. We should hold the teachers union to this. We better see improved student achievement.
Finally, the Chamber opposed this because there is no nexus to room tax and education. Our tourists will pay for the education of our children.
And did I mention that this law limits the room tax in Clark and Washoe counties to 13%? And that most of our hotels in Washoe are above 13% already? Meaning that Clark County tourists will pay 99% of the freight.
To: The Tourists of Clark County
From: The People in the Rest of Nevada
Thank you.
The vote was 16-5, with the no votes all coming from Republicans (Amodei, Cegavske, Hardy, McGinness, and Washington). The vote finally came a day after five hours of an off and on hearing was held on Monday. It was assumed as late as last night that there were not enough votes to pass the petition.
Most of the opponents of the bill complained that taxation should not be done by initiative petition, but through the legislative process. The Chamber could not agree more.
We opposed this bill when it appeared on the ballot last November in the form of WC-6. We said then that we have elected officials for a reason. We delegate decision making authority on taxes, spending, and other matters to our councilmen, commissioners, and state legislators. We do not live in a direct democracy. We live in a republic. (I have been informed that since the initiative petition process is outline in the Nevada State Constitution, that we do, in fact, have a form of direct democracy. So, I stand corrected. But it doesn't mean I have to like it!)
Even the supporters of this bill admitted that this is not the process that they would have preferred, that their hands were tied and could not improve the language.
The proponent of this measure (the teachers union) has been telling the Legislature that Nevada needs new "broad-based" tax sources that are more stable than our current revenue. (In other words, they support taxing businesses more.)
I fail to see how an increase in the room tax (a percentage of the total room rate, not a fixed dollar amount) meets this definition, but why let good policy get in the way of cold, hard cash?
At least room rates are stable right now, right?
After this biennium, the money raised from this measure will go to teacher salaries and to improve student achievement. We should hold the teachers union to this. We better see improved student achievement.
Finally, the Chamber opposed this because there is no nexus to room tax and education. Our tourists will pay for the education of our children.
And did I mention that this law limits the room tax in Clark and Washoe counties to 13%? And that most of our hotels in Washoe are above 13% already? Meaning that Clark County tourists will pay 99% of the freight.
To: The Tourists of Clark County
From: The People in the Rest of Nevada
Thank you.
Monday, March 9, 2009
The hearing on AB 162 just ended after almost three hours of testimony, some of it very moving and emotional.
Valerie Clark stepped up to the table with other representatives of the insurance industry and the manufacturers. Their testimony really focused on the affect on small businesses that this bill would have. Once large employers, unions, and medicaid recipients are excluded (as this bill provides for), the cost of this bill would seem to fall only 30% of employers.
The committee took no action on the bill today and will work out some of the issues that were identified.
While most observers in the Legislative Building agree that some type of autism coverage bill will pass, the question is how broad and sweeping the final bill will be.
The Senate is STILL meeting in Committee of the Whole to take testimony on the 3% room tax increase. This bill sailed through the Assembly. The Senate seems to have a few more questions about it...
Valerie Clark stepped up to the table with other representatives of the insurance industry and the manufacturers. Their testimony really focused on the affect on small businesses that this bill would have. Once large employers, unions, and medicaid recipients are excluded (as this bill provides for), the cost of this bill would seem to fall only 30% of employers.
The committee took no action on the bill today and will work out some of the issues that were identified.
While most observers in the Legislative Building agree that some type of autism coverage bill will pass, the question is how broad and sweeping the final bill will be.
The Senate is STILL meeting in Committee of the Whole to take testimony on the 3% room tax increase. This bill sailed through the Assembly. The Senate seems to have a few more questions about it...
The Assembly Commerce and Labor Committee has convened and is discussing AB 162, which would mandate that insurance companies cover autism treatment.
The Chamber is opposed to any health insurance mandates because they increase the costs on EVERYBODY’S insurance policy. If every policy has to cover such issues, then every policy will be more expensive. At a time when employers are struggling to keep their workers employed, any additional costs could force them to raise premiums or eliminate coverage.
Just to be clear, the Chamber is not opposed to insurance companies covering autism or any other medical condition; we are opposed to the state government mandating that coverage. These types of coverage issues should be a decision made by the insured and his/her employer.
The hearing room in Carson City is packed this afternoon with autism activists, many with children. The hearing room in Las Vegas appears to be filled with even more people.
Valerie Clark, the Chamber’s Immediate Past Chair, is here to testify in opposition to the bill. She is head of the Chamber’s Health Care Task Force and is President of Clark and Associates, an insurance brokerage firm. She will present a unique perspective, that of a mother, a nurse, and an insurance broker.
The Chamber is opposed to any health insurance mandates because they increase the costs on EVERYBODY’S insurance policy. If every policy has to cover such issues, then every policy will be more expensive. At a time when employers are struggling to keep their workers employed, any additional costs could force them to raise premiums or eliminate coverage.
Just to be clear, the Chamber is not opposed to insurance companies covering autism or any other medical condition; we are opposed to the state government mandating that coverage. These types of coverage issues should be a decision made by the insured and his/her employer.
The hearing room in Carson City is packed this afternoon with autism activists, many with children. The hearing room in Las Vegas appears to be filled with even more people.
Valerie Clark, the Chamber’s Immediate Past Chair, is here to testify in opposition to the bill. She is head of the Chamber’s Health Care Task Force and is President of Clark and Associates, an insurance brokerage firm. She will present a unique perspective, that of a mother, a nurse, and an insurance broker.
I spent the morning in the Senate Finance Committee, which is one of the committees that determine where our money will be spent for the next two years.
I testified with a neutral position on SB 14, which would raise the marriage license fee by $5 and would deposit that money in the account that aids the victims of domestic violence. $20 of every marriage license fee already goes to that account.
A representative of the wedding chapel industry approached me and asked for our support of an amendment offered by Senator Maurice Washington that would tack on an extra $7 to the fee for certified copies of marriage certificates. The chapel industry has been in a downturn for quite some time and it feels that it would be very difficult to absorb any more costs. The amendment mentioned above may bring in most of the money that the original bill would bring in and would not affect any specific industry.
Given that the Chamber has no position on marriage licenses or the fees associated with them, I signed in as neutral and simply urged the committee to consider the amendment.
The next bill that the Finance Committee took up was SB 150, which would create a separate budget reserve account for K-12 education funding. Currently, if there is education money that has been unallocated after a biennium, it reverts to the state’s general fund. SB 150 would keep that unallocated money in a separate fund that could then be used for economic downturns like we are seeing today.
I testified in strong favor of this bill and reiterated the Chamber’s support for long-term spending reforms such as the one that this bill provides.
In a few minutes, the Senate takes up the room tax…
I testified with a neutral position on SB 14, which would raise the marriage license fee by $5 and would deposit that money in the account that aids the victims of domestic violence. $20 of every marriage license fee already goes to that account.
A representative of the wedding chapel industry approached me and asked for our support of an amendment offered by Senator Maurice Washington that would tack on an extra $7 to the fee for certified copies of marriage certificates. The chapel industry has been in a downturn for quite some time and it feels that it would be very difficult to absorb any more costs. The amendment mentioned above may bring in most of the money that the original bill would bring in and would not affect any specific industry.
Given that the Chamber has no position on marriage licenses or the fees associated with them, I signed in as neutral and simply urged the committee to consider the amendment.
The next bill that the Finance Committee took up was SB 150, which would create a separate budget reserve account for K-12 education funding. Currently, if there is education money that has been unallocated after a biennium, it reverts to the state’s general fund. SB 150 would keep that unallocated money in a separate fund that could then be used for economic downturns like we are seeing today.
I testified in strong favor of this bill and reiterated the Chamber’s support for long-term spending reforms such as the one that this bill provides.
In a few minutes, the Senate takes up the room tax…
Thursday, March 5, 2009
My day is almost over. It was my turn to testify in front of the Joint Taxation meeting at around 7 pm.
I had been proceeded by several folks, including representatives from the Nevada Manufacturing Association, the Nevada Motor Transport Association, the Las Vegas and Henderson Chambers and the brothel owners. The Retail Association followed me.
Most of our messages struck the same theme: Our members are hurting, so be very aware of the consequences of your actions this session.
I discussed the 60 retail closures in Washoe County last year, the commercial vacancy rates at 20 year highs, IGT's layoffs and Moana Nursery's struggles.
I presented the same message that we have been presenting since session started: Until long-term spending reforms are implemented, we will not support any tax increases.
If we do nothing this session to deal with the SAGE Commission recommendations, PERS/PEBP reform, prevailing wage, etc. then the problem will only get worse as we move forward.
If we raise taxes now and do nothing on the issues mentioned above, our hole will continue to get deeper and we will have to have more cuts and more tax increases as we move forward.
Our members need tax stability so that they can plan their own budgets.
I did receive a fairly warm reception from the Committee, although after almost 5 hours of testimony, everyone was tired and were ready to end the day.
If you have any stories that you can share with me regarding how you have had to deal with the current economic conditions, click on the e-mail link on this page and drop me a line. It is always more meaningful to bring real stories to the table in a hearing room.
And so we move forward with less than 90 days to go...
I had been proceeded by several folks, including representatives from the Nevada Manufacturing Association, the Nevada Motor Transport Association, the Las Vegas and Henderson Chambers and the brothel owners. The Retail Association followed me.
Most of our messages struck the same theme: Our members are hurting, so be very aware of the consequences of your actions this session.
I discussed the 60 retail closures in Washoe County last year, the commercial vacancy rates at 20 year highs, IGT's layoffs and Moana Nursery's struggles.
I presented the same message that we have been presenting since session started: Until long-term spending reforms are implemented, we will not support any tax increases.
If we do nothing this session to deal with the SAGE Commission recommendations, PERS/PEBP reform, prevailing wage, etc. then the problem will only get worse as we move forward.
If we raise taxes now and do nothing on the issues mentioned above, our hole will continue to get deeper and we will have to have more cuts and more tax increases as we move forward.
Our members need tax stability so that they can plan their own budgets.
I did receive a fairly warm reception from the Committee, although after almost 5 hours of testimony, everyone was tired and were ready to end the day.
If you have any stories that you can share with me regarding how you have had to deal with the current economic conditions, click on the e-mail link on this page and drop me a line. It is always more meaningful to bring real stories to the table in a hearing room.
And so we move forward with less than 90 days to go...
The Joint Taxation hearing has just begun in Carson City. Both the Senate and Assembly Tax Committees are meeting in joint session today from 1:30 to 3:30 and then again from 5-8.
The purpose is to have a public forum whereby various groups who are “affected” by Nevada’s tax structure can offer their thoughts and solutions.
First up is PLAN, the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada. They are arguing that mining companies and other wealthy business owners are not paying their fair share and, therefore, the poor and middle class end up picking an unfair share of the tab.
One argument that has been made is that large corporations pay corporate profits tax in 47 other states and that we, as Nevadans, don’t benefit from any of it. It could be argued, however, that Nevadans may be paying for the tax policies of other states.
Imagine if several of those 47 states got rid of their corporate profits tax, don’t you think that would allow Wal-Mart or other national retailers to lower their costs nationwide?
Lastly, one of PLAN’s main complaints is that large corporations come into Nevada, make a lot of money off of us, and then ship it out of state to build schools and roads elsewhere.
How did PLAN gather all of this information and put it together for their report? They shipped some funds, paid by Nevadans, to Chicago to hire a consultant.
My scheduled time to address the committee is 6:45 this evening. Stay tuned…
The purpose is to have a public forum whereby various groups who are “affected” by Nevada’s tax structure can offer their thoughts and solutions.
First up is PLAN, the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada. They are arguing that mining companies and other wealthy business owners are not paying their fair share and, therefore, the poor and middle class end up picking an unfair share of the tab.
One argument that has been made is that large corporations pay corporate profits tax in 47 other states and that we, as Nevadans, don’t benefit from any of it. It could be argued, however, that Nevadans may be paying for the tax policies of other states.
Imagine if several of those 47 states got rid of their corporate profits tax, don’t you think that would allow Wal-Mart or other national retailers to lower their costs nationwide?
Lastly, one of PLAN’s main complaints is that large corporations come into Nevada, make a lot of money off of us, and then ship it out of state to build schools and roads elsewhere.
How did PLAN gather all of this information and put it together for their report? They shipped some funds, paid by Nevadans, to Chicago to hire a consultant.
My scheduled time to address the committee is 6:45 this evening. Stay tuned…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
