EDITORIAL: Democrats ducking position on Question 3

The classic board game Life features a key moment when each player reaches the “Day of Reckoning” space. A big decision must be made.

Nevada voters have their own “Day of Reckoning” in the real game of life. It arrives Tuesday, on Election Day, when Question 3 will be voted up or down.

The initiative was circulated two years ago by the state teachers union, providing the electorate with more than enough time to study the measure and consider the arguments for and against the creation of a 2 percent margins tax on all businesses with more than $1 million in annual revenue. The lengthy campaign will end Tuesday night. Question 3 will pass or fail.

Ducking the day of reckoning isn’t an option. Yet numerous Democrats seeking election or re-election to the Nevada Legislature would have voters believe they’re not ready to make the big decision. Perhaps they’re hoping for instructions to “Go back 10 spaces,” so they can avoid discussing a tax that would hit business revenue, not profits, ensuring that money-losing companies are hit with a big new bill from the state.

Those candidates can no longer say, “I don’t think it’s my place” to push voters one way or another, as Las Vegas Assemblyman Andy Eisen told the Review-Journal’s editorial board. Not his place? Anyone seeking re-election to a post that helps set state tax policy should have a position on the largest tax increase in state history.

Nor can candidates credibly say, “I haven’t taken a position on it,” which is the stance of Assemblywoman Lesley Cohen and Democratic Assembly candidates Jeff Hinton, Steve Yeager, Gerald Mackin and Nelson Araujo.

The language of Question 3 has been in the public domain for two years. Studies estimate the margins tax would take $800 million annually out of the state’s economy, ostensibly to pump up K-12 education funding. But Question 3 provides no guarantee that margins tax revenue will flow to schools. And it delivers no accountability and accompanying education reforms in return.

Anyone who hasn’t staked out a position on Question 3 either hasn’t read the initiative or hasn’t read the many studies about the damage it would do to the state’s slow economic recovery. Or they’re lying. Maybe all three. But in any of those scenarios, rest assured that when those sheepish candidates step into the voting booth Tuesday, they are going to press “yes” on Question 3. Voters should judge those candidates accordingly.

Given the number of Democratic candidates who won’t take a position, there can be only one reason for them not doing so: fear that voters will indeed punish them if they are truthful and open about their support for Question 3. This, more than anything else, proves Question 3 is terribly flawed.

Taxing business revenue is horrible policy because it cripples the ability of companies to reinvest in themselves, give pay raises and add jobs. In fact, studies show the margins tax would compel Nevada businesses to lay off thousands of employees, and that it will put some companies out of business altogether.

The day of reckoning is at hand. Vote yes, and the state’s economy goes back far more than 10 spaces.

Vote no on Question 3.

ON THE WEB: For a complete list of the Review-Journal editorial board’s 2014 election endorsements, go to www.reviewjournal.com/endorsements. The complete list of candidate endorsements will be published Sunday.