Stacked deck

Is it too much to ask that just one of the 19 Nevadans nominated to the state's latest tax study group be a champion of taxpayer interests, economic liberty and limited government?

Judging from the list of people picked to serve in the group, the answer is a resounding yes.

A legislative subcommittee selected a limited range of representatives to recommend changes to Nevada's tax code. Their collective charge, in working with a contracted research firm, is to "review proposals for broad-based taxes which are fair and equitable" and "develop a quality of life vision" for Nevada for the next 20 years, according to the resolution establishing the study. Its proposals will be forwarded to the 2011 Legislature.

Among those chosen to repeat the work of previous tax study panels: former Washoe County School District Superintendent Paul Dugan; Brian Rippett of the state teachers union; Cedric Williams of the North Las Vegas Fire Department; Washoe County Manager Katy Simon; and Susan Rhodes of the National Association of Social Workers.

The only reason to stack the study group with so many tax consumers is to make sure they ask for more taxes to consume. It's telling that this panel has not been specifically directed to achieve a revenue-neutral restructuring of Nevada's tax code -- that after recommending new, "fair and equitable" broad-based taxes, they must suggest an equivalent decrease in other taxes or the elimination of some levies entirely. It's also telling that they've been told their ideas for new taxes -- taxes that will hit more individuals and employers amid a desolating economic downturn -- will correlate to an improvement in our collective quality of life.

Who are these people to decide that taking more of our money for themselves will improve our quality of life? Teachers union officials, firefighters, local government bureaucrats and social workers have no expertise on tax policy and its effects on private-sector investment and job creation.

Yes, lawmakers also selected a handful of gaming and business figures to the study group, but not nearly enough to match the interests of bigger government. Considering the handful of tax increases that have won voter approval over the past decade were close decisions, at least six or seven study group members should be inclined to ask some obvious questions about their charge.

Why does the state need a new tax structure when the existing one allowed government budgets to grow faster than Nevada's population for 20 years? Why are so many states that have "broad-based taxes" like personal and corporate income levies dealing with budget problems as bad as Nevada's?

Nevada's public-sector budget woes are rooted in this lingering recession, years of over-spending on new programs and unsustainable wage and benefit increases for government workers. And there is no "fair and equitable" tax structure that can supply steady increases in revenue when the economy tanks.

But those perspectives clearly won't be popular when the unelected members of this study group begin their deliberations.