Nevada can fund education, without back-breaking taxes

When we consider Nevada’s government challenges, two points stand out:

■ Our K-12 school system is failing, even though the state has thrown greatly increased amounts of money at it, and it needs to be fixed.

■ The state and local tax burden on Nevadans has grown to levels well above what the public interest allows, and we must rein it in.

Let’s take the second point first. Together, Nevada’s state and local governments currently take an average of more than $5,300 from every man, woman and child. Most Nevadans think this is already excessive. Last November, by a 4-to-1 margin, Nevadans voted down a new business tax that would have required Nevada firms to fork over 2 percent of their gross earnings to the state. And for the first time in 85 years, voters also gave Republicans complete control of state government. The message seemed clear: Voters elected Republicans to restrain taxes and spending.

In fact, opposition to that tax proposal was the most popular choice on the ballot, with many Democrats and independents voting against it as well. In 2012, voters also rejected new tax proposals in Clark and Washoe counties, defeating each measure 2-to-1. They did so even as they re-elected President Barack Obama and continued Democrat control of the Nevada Legislature.

Because taxes are already unreasonably high, opposition to new or higher taxes is sometimes bipartisan in Nevada. In 2010, the Republican and Democratic nominees for governor both campaigned on no-new-taxes platforms.

So, we find it curious that some Republicans in Carson City are now considering proposals to increase taxes on Nevadans by more than $1 billion, including a proposal remarkably similar to the one voters just rejected 4-to-1. It, too, would require businesses to pay a portion of gross earnings to the state’s political class, regardless of whether the firm is even profitable. The only major difference is that the new proposal is even more complicated than the convoluted tax on November’s ballot. Under the new proposal, a business would fall into one of nearly 2,000 categories, each with a different tax rate.

Like most Nevadans, we understand we can remedy the state’s deficiencies in education and other areas without creating punitive new taxes.

Clearly, improvement is needed in a school system with the nation’s lowest graduation rate and some of the lowest test scores nationally and internationally. Gov. Brian Sandoval has laid out a bold, yet expensive, vision for accomplishing that task. We applaud his effort and support many of the reform measures he advocates. However, there are many no-cost and low-cost measures that should be implemented, too.

In Arizona, for example, student achievement is higher despite lower spending and remarkably similar demographic challenges. Nevada should be seeking to incorporate the best strategies from across the country to stretch education dollars the furthest.

The state controller is charged with the duty to recommend “plans for the better management … of the fiscal affairs of the state,” and the Legislature must pass a budget for the governor to sign. So, we launched an alternative budget proposal to fund the highest priorities of Nevadans and improve our schools without any new or increased taxes. We don’t get there just by chopping programs, either.

Our proposed budget would allow modest growth in state spending over the next two years, as general fund spending would increase from the current level of $6.6 billion to $6.9 billion.

We demonstrate our commitment to education not just by making existing dollars work better, but also by designating $62 million in new money for certain K-12 programs and by restoring the governor’s proposed cuts to community colleges.

We get there primarily by having employees of local governments contribute to their own retirements. Many local governments now provide high lifetime pension benefits to employees who retire at age 55, without ever asking any employee to contribute toward this extravagant benefit. Keeping up with this commitment requires cities, counties and school districts to make annual deposits into a retirement fund equal to 28 percent of pay. We would only require local government workers to split this contribution, just as state workers and most private-sector workers already do.

Our plan is respectful of the roles of the governor and Legislature, and seeks to provide a pathway to achieve our shared objectives as Nevadans. We have worked closely with a core group of Assembly Republicans and seek to avoid a legislative stalemate over the budget. A key advantage of our plan is that it’s the only one that can pass with simple majorities in each house. Any plan with tax hikes would require a two-thirds supermajority, which would be very difficult or impossible to achieve.

We invite and encourage all Nevadans to review our Balanced Plan and to provide feedback to your representatives in Carson City. Together, we can create a Nevada in which our families and children can prosper.

Ron Knecht, a Republican, is Nevada’s elected controller, Geoffrey Lawrence is assistant controller and Assemblyman Jim Wheeler, R-Minden, is majority whip of the Nevada Legislature’s lower chamber.