What part of "no" don't they understand? Nevadans do not want their taxes raised. Period. They said so, emphatically, in 1994 and 1996 when they passed the Gibbons Tax Restraint initiative requiring a 2/3 super-majority vote of the Legislature to raise taxes.
And the tax-hikers knew the people didn't want taxes raised in 2003. Which is why proponents went to such extraordinary lengths to legislatively pass the largest tax hike in Nevada's history that year. But here's something you probably don't know about that tax battle.
You see, there's a "loophole" in the Gibbons Tax Restraint law. In fact, the Legislature CAN pass tax hikes by a simple majority vote instead of a super-majority. But there's also a catch. If a tax hike is passed by legislators by a simple majority and not a 2/3 super-majority, then the tax hike must go to a vote of the people to be ratified.
Tax hike supporters in 2003 knew full well the people would have voted a resounding "no." So instead of going to the people, they went to the Supreme Court - where they received an outrageous ruling that circumvented the tax restraint law, thus denying the people the opportunity to vote on the tax hike.
Three years later, the author of the Gibbons Tax Restraint law was running for governor. And for all intents and purposes, there was only one major issue in the campaign: Taxes. Jim Gibbons signed a written promise to the voters of Nevada that if elected he would not raise taxes. On the other hand, Gibbons' opponent, Sen. Dina Titus, had voted for so many tax hikes during her political career that the Gibbons campaign nicknamed her "Dina Tax-Us."
And when the smoke cleared on Election Day 2006, the people of Nevada elected the man who promised not to tax us rather than the woman who most certainly would.
But that didn't stop the tax-and-spenders from pushing tax hike after tax hike in last year's legislative session. The governor, as promised, just said "no." So tax-hike legislators started scheming to go around the "No New Taxes" governor by putting tax hikes on the ballot and letting the people decide - which took an incredible amount of chutzpah considering the extraordinary lengths they went to in 2003 to prevent voters from doing just that.
The tax-hike talk continued this week at an interim legislative meeting. Sen. "Tax-Us" wondered out loud if Gov. Gibbons intended to stick to his no new taxes pledge so that legislators wouldn't be "spinning our wheels" with plans to raise taxes. Unbelievable.
Hello, senator? No means no.
At least serial tax-hiking Sen. Dennis Nolan is taking the governor at his word. Unfortunately he's also again echoing sentiments he voiced in the last legislative session; that legislators might have to find ways to raise taxes "over the objections of the governor." In other words, putting a tax hike on the ballot. Apparently, Sen. Nolan will take "no" from the governor on tax hikes, but he won't take it from the people who elected the governor who promised no new taxes. Go figure.
Fortunately, there may be a silver lining behind all this dark cloud talk about exploiting the tax restraint loophole. A new tax restraint initiative is being considered this year that would require a 2/3 super-majority vote of the people on ballot initiatives to raise taxes; the same lofty hurdle now placed on legislators. If such a measure makes it to the ballot, I suspect it will pass overwhelmingly, just as the original tax restraint initiative did. And if it does, it'll be a cold July day in Pahrump before we ever see another tax hike in Nevada - either legislatively or by initiative. And we'll have relentless tax hikers such as Sens. Titus and Nolan to thank for inspiring taxpayers to close this loophole.
Gibbons Tax Restraint Initiative - The Sequel. I'll bring the popcorn.
• Chuck Muth is president of Citizen Outreach, a limited-government public policy organization.