The spirit of the American Revolution was, to some extent, rekindled in Nevada during this past state legislative session. Specifically, the regular session, followed by a frustrating string of special legislative sessions, reawakened a revolutionary spirit among many business leaders in Nevada.
Of all the symbols created during the Spirit of ’76 – 1776, that is – the one that best captures the essence of the 2003 legislative cycle may well be the yellow Gadsden flag with the coiled rattlesnake and defiant “Don’t Tread on Me” motto. The meaning of Don’t Tread on Me is unmistakable.
The simple goal of finding and fully defining a “broad-based” tax became the focus of the real tax wars of these sessions. How to tax was more a topic than how much to tax. Representatives of Nevada’s gaming industry, unions and many others, for example, viewed gross receipts and net profits taxes as the only acceptable tax systems. They argued these are genuinely broad-based taxes. Others viewed these same tax devices as fertilizer for a Nevada IRS that would sprout auditors, tax assessors and piles of forms to choke business owners.
Factions divided sharply over what was acceptable, generating angry Don’t Tread on Me debates. These divisions were more than philosophical. They were emotional – often brutally so. Charges of obstructionism flew back and forth.
For many, the battle was formally joined as advocates for both sides divided into emotional, committed camps ready to fight to their last breath for what they viewed was right. This war pitted tax opponents against those who demanded that the quality of state services improves and keeps up with Nevada’s record-setting growth.
This is a long-term war, and current views regarding who won and who lost the 2003 legislative sessions are interesting, but neither foresee nor assess the long-term impact of this year’s battles. That remains to be sorted out.
The first step in the sorting process is already underway. Consultants are running the best and worst of this year’s multiple legislative sessions through a series of polls taken by players on all sides. The Don’t Tread on Me side is asking, “Do we need a billion dollars in new taxes? Does Nevada really need 560 new state employees?” They may point out that with the new teachers and school support personnel who will be hired, the number of new public employees could climb well above 1,000 over the biennium. They are asking, “Does Nevada really need 1,000 new public employees during these hard economic times?”
Teachers, parents and advocates for public education will respond, absolutely, that is what Nevada needs. And groups served by Nevada’s Medicaid and mental health services systems will produce startling numbers quantifying horrifying details of the low levels of service and the inadequacies of many Nevada social support systems.
It is entirely possible attorneys will be sent to federal and state district courts seeking to declare that Nevada’s state government is failing to fulfill its constitutionally mandated requirements to meet the needs of the poor. It would be a harsh reality to wake up one morning and read headlines that a federal district court judge has just been placed in charge of Nevada’s Medicaid or mental health systems.
Once this fall’s polling and post-session political posturing has played out, the winning messages and power plays will be identified, refined and launched as political weaponry throughout hundreds of campaigns next year. The hard-sell themes will be pounded home via television and radio commercials and newspaper ads. They will be circulated through hundreds of thousands of brochures mailed to every voter, hand-delivered to front doors, delivered in speeches and all the free media the best public relations pros can garner.
Campaign successes and failures in the 2004 elections will show which are the winning and losing themes. Then, those who win election to the 2005 Legislature will have to put their political rhetoric into a budget and tax package that works. The end of that session, or sessions, will trigger yet another biennium of political test-taking and campaign rhetoric. Finally, once the dust settles and votes are counted after the 2006 elections, we will be able to figure out which side of this year’s debates prevailed.
This is how we fight revolutions in civilized society, although it may not seem very civilized as the campaigns progress. It is, however, far better than the “off with their heads” and “load the muskets” versions of revolutions in earlier times.