Nevada Sen. Bob Beers, R-Las Vegas, Wednesday called on lawmakers to adopt the same strict caps on governmental spending enacted by Colorado.
"TABOR's great political power is that it holds government growth at the same rate our economy is growing," he said referring to the proposal named after the title it was given in Colorado. "It limits spending to last time's spending plus growth in population plus inflation."
Senate Joint Resolution 5, he told the Senate Finance Committee, would not only cap spending growth from all sources at the state level, it would do the same to every county, city, town board and improvement district in the state. The only revenue exempted from the caps would be federal funds, highway funds and initiatives approved by the voters after SJR5 is added to the Nevada Constitution.
He said voters have the ability to override any of the caps but the only way lawmakers or a commission could do so would be by a two-thirds vote which would have to be endorsed by voters at the next general election.
The plan is up before Colorado's voters again. This time the proposal is to suspend the restrictions for five years because opponents say they caused deep cuts in programs when revenues fell after 9/11 and held down the ability to restore those programs when the economy recovered.
Beers said opponents of the Colorado plan are "liberal advocacy groups who are deeply interested in the ongoing conversion of private assets."
But that wasn't the source of criticism raised Wednesday. Elko Republican Sen. Dean Rhoads told Beers he doesn't like the idea.
"I have a problem with the two-thirds deal," he said. "You're letting the minority control the majority and I don't think our founding fathers intended that."
Beers said the majority of Nevadans want to slow the growth of government.
"No one wants to choke government off but I think many of us want to stop this practice in the past few years of government growing much faster than the population," he said.
"If we pass all these petitions, why do they need you and I?" Rhoads asked. "Why would we need a Legislature, county commission or city council?"
He said petitions like SJR5 are presented in a way that gets support without telling people the consequences.
"When you ask somebody would you like to see your taxes cut, they say yes. But you don't say schools are going to be cut and roads are going to go to hell," Rhoads said.
Beers, however, pointed out that even after 9/11, tax revenues in Nevada didn't go down. He said the amount they increased was smaller than expected but that total revenues still increased over the previous year.
Senate Minority Leader Dina Titus, D-Las Vegas, said her problem with the plan was its complexity. She said explaining an amendment that changes nearly a dozen sections of the Nevada Constitution clearly and fairly will be extremely difficult.
The other objection came from Mike Alastuey representing Clark County. He has not only done fiscal work for Clark County but the Clark school district and the state of Nevada budget office.
"A lock-step, statewide constitutional approach addressing all 200 plus local governments is a one-size-fits-all approach I would submit would not work well at all," he said.
He said Clark County already limits annual tax increases to population growth plus inflation, maintains a rainy-day fund for emergencies and exercises fiscal restraint much like what is in SJR5. But he said that wouldn't work for all governments in the state - especially those small counties which periodically go through a "boom-bust" cycle because of mine closures and other economic swings in major industries.
And Alastuey said he too is concerned the amendment would cause deep cuts during economic bad times, then prevent government from recovering when the economy improves.
But the committee ran out of time during Wednesday's hearing so Finance Chairman Bill Raggio, R-Reno, scheduled an hour Friday morning to hear from other opponents of the proposed amendment.
Contact reporter Geoff Dornan at gdornan@nevadaappeal.com or 687-8750.