The 'sky is falling'?

     One wonders why Assemblyman David Goldwater, D-Las Vegas, bothered to put his Infrastructure Committee through three hours of hearings last week on the Southern Nevada Water Authority's proposal to slap Southern Nevadans with a quarter-cent add-on sales tax.
      Mr. Goldwater's exhaustive examination of the issue managed to proceed without a single mention of new studies by legislative auditors -- recently brought forward by fellow Democratic Assemblyman Harry Mortenson -- which indicate the tax hike may not be needed at all, since growth rates higher than estimated by the water authority could easily pay the bill through water rates and connection fees alone.
      With a vote not scheduled on the tax-hike authorization until April 14, one might expect the committee chairman to express a willingness to carefully review these conflicting projections in the interim.
      Nope. Mr. Goldwater opined last Wednesday that anyone who had attended his committee's hearings must realize the water authority has shown the need for the tax increase ... period.
      This despite the fact that Water Authority Executive Director Pat Mulroy admits the authority's bond underwriters have reviewed the entity's growth plans without the tax increase, and see no problem underwriting the whole project without it -- even allowing for Ms. Mulroy's determination to build the project under a sweetheart "Special Project Labor Agreement" which fattens union pockets at a cost of who knows how many extra millions.
      If the state demographer's projections for Clark County population growth are used, "It looks like growth will pay for this particular project," rose the lonely voice of Assemblyman Mortenson last week.
      Mr. Mortenson, a retired nuclear physicist, has been dismayed by politicians' loud caterwauling that "the sky is falling and we don't have money to pay for infrastructure," he said.
      In fact, of course, revenues for every level of government in the state of Nevada have been growing at nearly twice the rate necessary to provide the same level of services provided 20 years ago ... even after population growth and inflation are taken into account. The money has simply been sucked up and spent elsewhere -- much of it in a continuing net outflow from Southern to Northern Nevada.
      Why would lawmakers and bureaucrats want a tax hike, if it's not truly necessary?
      Because tax hikes, of course, swell the general fund. Even when they're "earmarked," they allow money that previously went to the earmarked purpose to be shifted back into a huge central slop trough, where they become available for the creation of new departments and bureaus; for direct tax-funded loans, grants or other payoffs to the politically favored; for the erection of imposing government towers, art works and pyramids without the inconvenience of seeking voter approval; for new raise and benefits packages all 'round, and always new government jobs.
      There is no rush to pass an added quarter-cent sales tax.
      Real political leaders and visionaries, of course, would want to examine privatizing the whole affair -- now possible without losing tax-exempt bonding status under new IRS procedures issued Jan. 10.
      But with a lame duck governor who seems to be out shopping for retirement property, a Clark County Commission chairwoman trying out for the role of the Queen of Hearts in a local amateur remake of "Alice in Wonderland," and the Assembly Infrastructure Committee safely in the hands of Hillary Clinton disciple David Goldwater, there's not much risk of that.
      Even so, the hemorrhage of tax revenues flowing northward from Clark County should be halted -- and redirected to local infrastructure needs -- before officials speak of tax hikes.
      The Legislature can go ahead and authorize Clark County to raise taxes at some point in the future, of course, should circumstances change. But any such authorization should make it clear that the matter must be submitted to the approval of Southern Nevada's voters at the polls, if and when any slow-down in growth convincingly demonstrates that such a levy is truly necessary.