VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1], 2, 3, 4, 5 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 14:17:24 07/15/03 Tue
Author: richiep
Subject: I'm going to listen to talk radio today...

..only because I want to see if the likes of Rush, Hannity etc have it in them to dare say something about this wonderful REPUBLICAN governor of Nevada that sued his own state, and got the courts to agree with him that the will of the people and the State Constitution should be ignored because he wanted a one BILLION dollar tax increase!

This is from today's Wall Street Journal, this is so important to read I'm just going to post the whole story, I apologize in advance to anyone who thinks I should just put in a link.

----------------------------
REVIEW & OUTLOOK

Nevada's Judicial Dice-Throwers
And you thought Florida's Supreme court was arrogant.

Tuesday, July 15, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT

In a state that has given us the quickie divorce, legalized prostitution and gambling, you'd think it would be hard to raise eyebrows. But compared to their Supreme Court, Nevada's sin industries are looking downright respectable. In a landmark 6-to-1 ruling Thursday, Nevada's justices came up with a real doozy: Essentially they ordered state legislators to violate the state constitution they have sworn to uphold.

That's the real meaning of their ruling that a Nevada constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds majority in both state houses for any tax hike was trumped by another constitutional requirement that the state fund public education. The dubious reasoning here was that while the education requirement was "substantive" and "specific," the supermajority requirement for a tax increase was merely "procedural" and "general."

Leave aside for a moment the singular idea that procedural requirements are not as essential to self- rule as other provisions. (The Federalist Papers are all about such unsubstantive "procedural" details as the separation of powers.) Or that the case can be made that it is the supermajority requirement that is specific and the education requirement that is general.

This case shouldn't have been before the court at all. And it wouldn't have been had Republican Governor Kenny Guinn not taken the extraordinary step of suing his own state legislature when it refused to push through nearly $1 billion in tax increases he wanted.

Yet the move has paid off for Mr. Guinn, if not for Nevada taxpayers or the cause of self-government. With his state's constitution now handily disposed of, the Governor looks set to get his way. The Assembly passed a bill Sunday that would increase taxes by a record $788 million over the next two years. Meanwhile, the only real argument in the Senate appears to be over what precise form the tax increases will take.

Now, Governors feuding with legislators over budgets is nothing new. But by resorting to a judicially enforced tax decision that properly belongs to the elected representatives of the people of Nevada, the Governor and the judges have put themselves in a class all their own. At least the state's gamblers and prostitutes can claim to be working within the law.

By contrast, to conduct their business Nevada's highest court and its chief executive pulled an end run around a clear constitutional imperative in order to carve out an exemption for a specific spending interest. In this case that happened to be public education. But who is to say other justices won't discover other special interests?

You can bet, moreover, that spendthrifts elsewhere are watching Nevada closely. Already a spokesman for Gray Davis has told the Associated Press that a similar suit was "something that we could possibly look at in the future." So much for "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

Remember them? It's not as if the people of Nevada didn't know what they were doing when they voted overwhelmingly, twice, for the supermajority tax amendment. Voters know that without some kind of discipline, politicians will always have a hard time saying no to intense spending lobbies. And Nevadans are hardly alone. Other states--Colorado, Arizona and Florida--have similar tax or spending disciplines that require either supermajorities or voter approval. Not coincidentally, they are also the states that have generally weathered the economic slowdown of the past few yearsbetter than their peers.

The states facing the worst budget shortfalls tend to be those either with no tax or spending limits or limits that they've weaseled out of. California is the most notorious. What we're seeing in Nevada today is largely a replay of what led California to its present woes.

After Proposition 13 in 1978, Californians also passed something called the Gann Amendment, which limited increases in state and local appropriations from tax revenue to population growth plus inflation. But voters later watered this down, allowing an exception for--you guessed it--education. As the Cato Institute points out, if California had held spending growth to the terms of the Gann Amendment, Governor Davis would not have a budget crisis today.

Apart from Mr. Guinn and the teachers unions, the folks happiest about this are probably Florida's high court judges, who now have company in making a mockery of self-government. It appears Governor Guinn will now get his tax hike. But let's remember that in suing the state's legislators, he was in reality suing his own voters.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> That wasn't tooooo long. Still belongs in the Politics and Opinion Fourm. That boars's posts get picked up by out of state shows where this one is more local. **** So, did you get to hear what you wanted? -- Surf, 14:08:30 07/16/03 Wed


[ Edit | View ]
[> [> Yeah it is long, but still a worthwhile read - as for being picked up nationally, that was my point - they won't - it doesn't fit the agenda. But I still like a fool hold out hope at times that someday I'll wake up to find just little bit of integrity in the world -- richiep, 22:29:10 07/16/03 Wed


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Roger Hedgecock, subbing for Rush on Wednesday, discussed the topic with a caller, referring to that governor as a RINO (Repub In Name Only). Richiep, you should hook up with billstoddard and his bunch that don't want to pay taxes. You guys seem like you would have much in common. But whenever I hear talk about taxes, it's about as as interesting as a lecture on Beowulf. -- Satellite Radio Fan (THE radio medium of the future), 17:58:52 07/17/03 Thu


[ Edit | View ]

[> The nationally-syndicated Neal Boortz brought this up... but then again, Boortz is a Libertarian, not a Republican. -- "Vince From Villanova" (Hey! The government's growing even faster!), 03:59:07 07/17/03 Thu


[ Edit | View ]
[> [> Well OK that makes sense - then would it be fair to say that anyone who says they want a small government, and who votes for a Republican over a Libertarian is either an idiot or crazy (and I mean someone who is not just "saying" they want small government, but someone who really "wants" smaller government) -- richiep, 10:45:16 07/18/03 Fri


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Only if you're OK with the 'even-bigger government' opposition in office when your minority candidate inevitably loses again. That would be crazy. How do you think Bill Clinton got into office? Remember crackpot Ross Perot? And I've publicly offered to kiss Nader voters from 2000 - on the lips. -- Scott "small 'l' libertarian Tilde, 16:44:40 07/18/03 Fri


[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> Scott save yourself from doing the Rush, Hanitty, and Savage impersonation, I've heard it all way too many times - but the truth is the truth and your guy is making government bigger, growing it faster then Clinton did. I know you live in a world that likes to think otherwise (or try to convince people that its what you believe) but the TRUTH is Republicans want big government as much as Democrats do. Its just that they want it to be "their" big government. -- richiep, 21:30:15 07/18/03 Fri


[ Edit | View ]

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.