Brains the size of walnuts

When it comes to higher taxes and the state's recurring spending debacles, Nevadans resemble that classic "dinosaurs in crisis" cartoon by "Far Side" artist Gary Larson.

You may remember it. A stegosaurus behind a podium addresses an audience of fellow dinosaurs: "The picture's pretty bleak, gentlemen ... the world's climates are changing, the mammals are taking over, and we all have a brain about the size of a walnut."

And so we, with our tiny brains, appear to be doomed to repeat ourselves from one legislative session to the next. In the boom times we spend every dime we collect, thereby creating a new high-water spending mark. Then, in the bust times, we scramble to shake the proverbial couch cushions to maintain that high level of spending. At no time do we stop, take a deep breath, and ask: What are we doing and why?

You'd think we'd learn. We don't.

For example, a few weeks ago I had the distinct pleasure of addressing a "think-tank" of Las Vegans who study issues and try to come to grips with problems of the day. The group was comprised of casino moguls, bankers, builders, financial gurus, labor leaders and businessfolk. I've known most of these people for decades and -- so there's no mistake -- let it be said that the think-tankers are good people. They gather with one honest goal in mind: improving the state of Nevada.

As we talked, the consensus became crystal clear: To move the needle and accomplish anything worthwhile in Nevada -- be it in education, mental health, road construction, you name it -- the state needed more money. And more money means more taxes and more taxes, well ... of course, that is the trick.

Who should foot the bill for better schools, decent mental health, safer roads, etc.? On that, there was no consensus. And, if you ask me, there shouldn't be. It gets the cart before the horse. My advice to the think-tankers and to legislators and to governors and to voters is to avoid focusing first on how we ought to raise taxes to "improve" a state service such as, say, education.

Instead, we first ought to establish what Nevadans want from public education. What is quality education? What is the end-game? Then we deconstruct the current education bureaucracy and rebuild it to align with the new goal. We put a price tag on the new education initiative, subtract the current spending on education, and then take the whole plan to people for a vote.

If the new education goals are worthy enough and if there is rock-solid accountability built into the plan, people will support it.

I know. That sounds like Roy calling "Here kitty, kitty, kitty." Call me foolish if you wish, but I think there's merit in leaders taking the time to create a vision, make it accountable, and then humbly and passionately ask people to vote for it. I think people would respond. It certainly would be a whole hell of a lot more sane that the current plan, which is to convene the Legislature every two years, bicker for six months and then in the end let lobbyists spend every last dime we have on business-as-usual programs that we all agree don't work as well as we'd like.

Until that system changes, you can count me out of supporting higher taxes. Adding more money to legacy programs with no vision and no accountability won't change anything. But we do it.

Why? Because apparently we do, in fact, have brains the size of walnuts.

Sherman Frederick (sfrederick@reviewjournal.com) is publisher of the Review-Journal and president of Stephens Media.