More tax hikes?

Lobbyists for Nevada's mining industry entered the 2009 Legislature wearing bull's-eyes big enough to cover an open pit. Lawmakers were hunting for new revenues and many were convinced that profitable mining companies -- especially those digging up gold -- should have much bigger tax bills.

But much to the anguish of the greens and their friends in the tax-and-spend set, mining escaped Carson City without having to take on any new, industry-specific levies.

The Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, an anti-capitalist group in relentless pursuit of "racial, social and environmental justice," was mad enough to take the issue into its own hands. On Tuesday, the organization filed an initiative petition that could more than triple mining taxes.

PLAN must collect more than 97,000 signatures from registered Nevada voters by Aug. 4 to qualify its question for the November ballot. Voters would have to approve the constitutional amendment this year and again in 2012 to have the new taxes to take effect sometime in 2013.

Instead of taxing the mining industry's net proceeds at 5 percent (revenues after expenses), the initiative seeks a minimum tax of 5 percent on gross revenue, with lawmakers having the option to make the rate even higher.

Mining is the only sector of the Nevada economy -- outside of government -- that's thriving amid this recession. Unemployment in mining counties is half the statewide average, Nevada Mining Association President Tim Crowley points out. The industry pays its workers well, sustaining entire counties north of Las Vegas.

Mining employs about 14,000 people statewide. So imagine if PLAN's tax were in effect in 2008, and mining had to pay the state and county governments $284 million in taxes instead of $79 million, going by the group's estimates. That additional $205 million in taxes is equal to nearly $15,000 per Nevada employee. Think this tax wouldn't cost jobs?

If PLAN were being honest about its agenda here, it would tell voters that this initiative isn't just about preserving and expanding government services. It's about punishing companies that it considers environmentally destructive and eliminating the jobs of workers who live in parts of Nevada that overwhelmingly vote Republican. The amendment probably would be a revenue wash, modestly increasing government collections, but pummeling rural economies in the process.

PLAN has every right to lead this exercise in democracy. Its signature collectors should be free to do their jobs without fear of harassment or intimidation.

But to get this amendment approved, PLAN will have to make a case to the electorate that goes beyond feel-good environmentalism and economic fantasy. Voters have a way a finding the truth in such matters. Upon seeing such a hostile attack on a single industry, taxpayers will be bound to ask themselves, "How long before PLAN comes after my job?"