To the editor:
Texas state Sen. Craig Estes was recently invited to speak in Nevada about the Texas business margin tax, and while he supported revisions made to the tax in 2007, he now waffles on its benefit to his state (“Margins tax ‘chilling’ for legislator from Texas,” Wednesday Review-Journal).
Texas has historically told companies there is a cost to doing business in Texas. In Nevada, there is no requirement, thus big business gets a free ride. Despite having tax burdens requiring businesses to pay their fair share, Texas has seen economic growth, is routinely at the top of lists for business relocation and finds its communities at the top of “most livable cities” lists.
Further gloom and doom was warned when the lawmaker said the tax only raised $3.9 billion in its first year, short of the projected $6 billion. It’s unclear if he mentioned the billions raised by the tax occurred at the outset of the Great Recession.
The lawmaker claimed he has seen the light when it comes to his previous support of the tax. One must assume that light is green based on the growth and prosperity Texas has seen through the toughest of economic times.
The Texas margin tax solution was once described in an analysis as being accepted not because of the tax it is, but because of the tax it isn’t. When one reads just last month that another car manufacturer, Toyota, is moving 3,000 jobs to Texas, it’s clear the tax isn’t a disincentive for business relocation. Sadly, Nevada was not on that car manufacturer’s list for consideration, despite our state’s tax advantages.
Voters have a chance to put Nevada on a path to prosperity by voting yes for The Education Initiative, Question 3 on the November ballot. A good public education system will improve Nevada’s economy and attract high-wage businesses. It’s time big business in Nevada accepts its responsibility by investing in our education system, community, economy and students by paying its fair share of taxes.
RUBEN MURILLO JR.
The writer is president of the Nevada State Education Association.
Boycott of Bundy
To the editor:
The saga of Cliven Bundy vs. the Bureau of Land Management makes for great visual stories. I think many have been misdirected into thinking that this is about turtles and cows caught in a constitutional debate. It’s not.
Like most successful agri-business people, Mr. Bundy is executing a calculated and so far successful business plan. He has avoided the cost of buying feed for his cattle to the tune of more than $1 million. Rather than pursuing failed high-profile roundups and costly legal maneuvering, those who disagree with Mr. Bundy’s business philosophy should take a page from Cesar Chavez’s playbook and boycott Mr. Bundy’s product.
Who does Mr. Bundy supply with beef? Put the pressure on those companies and make the Bundy operation toe the line. Just ask California’s grape growers if the boycott was effective or not.
To the editor:
The whole issue involving Cliven Bundy against the federal government should end, and there is a way for that to happen. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Rep. Steven Horsford, D-Nev., can end it with the help of the Democratic playbook: just declare it over. Move along, nothing to see here, and then after a few months, dismiss it as old news.
This strategy has worked for Democrats with the Fast and Furious, Benghazi and IRS scandals. They can even manufacture new scandals for diversions, like the war on women, income inequality and a gaggle of others from their repertoire.
Come on guys, get ’er done.
DALE LAINE SR.