Dickman Tax Restraint
Initiative Would Close Tax-Hike Loophole
Chuck
Muth
April
16, 2015
It’s
a law of human nature. If you give
students a week to complete a term paper, they will take the full week to
complete the term paper. If you give
those same students a month, they’ll take the full month.
Same
goes for politicians spending your money.
If you give them a dollar, they’ll spend the full dollar. Give them five dollars, they’ll spend the
full five dollars. Give them $7.3
billion and they’ll spend the full $7.3 billion.
To
borrow a phrase, it’s the spending, stupid. And
the only way to keep the politicians from spending more of your money is to
stop giving them more of your money in the first place.
Fortunately,
back in the 1990’s Nevada voters approved a tax restraint law that requires legislators
in Carson City to get a 2/3 super-majority vote to raise taxes and take more of
your money. Unfortunately, liberals have
a found a loophole in the law.
Knowing
how difficult it now is to pass a tax hike in the Legislature, they’ve begun to
shift tax hikes to the ballot box, where 50.1 percent of voters can vote to
raise taxes on the other 49.9 percent of us.
The
Dickman Tax Restraint Initiative is a necessary check on the insatiable
appetite of liberals in both parties who insist they know how to spend your
money better than you do.
It
would also close the loophole sneaky legislators have found whereby they can
circumvent the existing tax restraint law by voting to place tax hikes on the
ballot without going through the trouble and expense of gathering the requisite
number of signatures otherwise required by citizens to put an issue on the
ballot.
The
Dickman Tax Restraint Initiative would make it far more difficult to put tax
hikes on the ballot and far more expensive to mislead…er, lobby the electorate
to pass them. It does not diminish the
average voter’s power to defeat tax hikes sponsored by deep-pocketed special
interests; it enhances it.
Lastly,
an argument has been made that it’s one thing to handcuff the Legislature with
the 2/3 super-majority requirement, but that a majority of the electorate
should be sufficient to exercise the will of the people. But that argument argues against itself.
If
a majority of voters vote to require a 2/3 super-majority of voters to approve
tax hikes on the ballot, THAT’S the will of the people. So let it be written; so let it be done.
* *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * * *
(Mr.
Muth is president of Citizen Outreach and the publisher of www.NevadaNewsandViews.com. He personally blogs at www.MuthsTruths.com)
You can read this column online, as well as access archives
of past Muth's Truths columns by clicking here... www.MuthsTruths.com |
No comments:
Post a Comment