Deregulator: Alive since '85!

Gag me The ever-inane Las Vegas Sun editorializes that the Supreme Court's decision was "a victory for the children." (Must .. not ... spew.) Chief Justice Deborah Agosti, who wrote the court's opinion, noted that the deadlock in the Legislature had created a crisis for public schools because the Legislature has failed to meet its constitutional responsibility to fund public education for the upcoming school year. Basically, the court found that the constitutional requirement for the Legislature to fund education trumped the requirement that tax increases be passed by a two-thirds vote. Crisis ... not But what is this responsibility, exactly? Let's go to the constitution, Article 11: Section 2. Uniform system of common schools. The legislature shall provide for a uniform system of common schools, by which a school shall be established and maintained in each school district at least six months in every year , and any school district which shall allow instruction

Worse than I thought Rob Natelson, a law professor at the University of Montana who's helped draft tax limitation initiatives, says the Nevada decision will be cited as precedent by teachers unions in other states that are trying to get supermajority tax requirements invalidated. What's not shocking about this is that the Review-Journal's Carri Thevenot, who reported the story, had to go to Montana to find a law professor who found the decision troubling. The geniuses who "teach" law at UNLV didn't really have any trouble with it: Carl Tobias, who teaches constitutional law at UNLV's Boyd Law School, said he and other law professors on campus read the court's decision Thursday afternoon and discussed it with each other. "I think it's an interesting opinion," Tobias said. "And I think the emphasis that I see is on education, and that the court speaks eloquently and forcefully to education as a fundamental right." The professo

Court to Constitution: Drop dead In a jaw-dropping, 6-1 decision, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled the constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds majority vote by the Legislature for any state tax increase meaningless. (Read the opinion here .) The court said the Gibbons Tax Restraint Initiative "is a procedural requirement" less important than the "substantive constitutional law" mandating that the Legislature fund education. The Legislature can now pass a tax increase by simple majority vote. Think about it. The voters use their duly authorized right to amend the state constitution by referendum only to be told by a handful of black-robed tyrants that their votes mean nothing. As an aside, the court followed the "reasoning" (if you can call it that) of the teachers' union, swallowing their argument that the 2/3 requirement made the whole job of governing "inconvenient." (That amicus brief is here .) The Legislature will go back to work n

Higher education indeed Briefs have been filed in the matter of Guinn v. Nevada Legislature, and among the more entertaining is one offered by the Nevada Faculty Alliance, apparently a group of university professors who are cheesed that funding for their tidy sinecures is threatened by the budget deadlock. (Read all the briefs here .) If you wonder why, academically speaking, UNLV and UNR aren't mentioned in the same breath as, say, Harvard or Stanford (or even Berkley or the University of North Carolina), just read the profs' little temper tantrum, er, brief , which argues that the constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds majority for tax increases is, well, an impediment to runaway spending. And that's just not fair. Since a) funding for public education is mandated by the Constitution; b) a simple majority can pass spending bills, but c) a two-thirds majority is required to raise taxes: ... either the Gibbons Initiative should be struck down as being irreconcila

Or maybe not There might not be a resolution to the fiscal impasse after all. As further details of the Secret Plan to End the Budget War leaked out, a potential deal-killer emerged: A new, 2.5 percent business profits tax -- the same sort of new tax on non-gaming companies that's been rejected by Assembly Republicans numerous times before. While the Legislature will meet at noon to consider the proposal, it looks as if it will get no more than 26 votes in the lower house ... two too few to become law. GOP members hinted they would back a tax plan if the profits tax were replaced by a higher payroll tax, but those appeals have fallen on deaf ears, so far. Make no mistake: The payroll tax has problems, too, primarily the fact that it would be extremely regressive, applying to only the first $20,000 or so of annual wages, hitting low-income workers the hardest. Plus, it could easily be considered a personal income tax, which is (the last time I checked) not allowed by the Nevada Con

Bye, bye free checking A deal that would break the state's budget impasse has apparently been struck by a dozen-member group of lawmakers meeting privately in Carson City. Details are secret for now, but the primary new/different tax that would be imposed is a 3 percent "franchise fee" (a corporate income tax) on banks. It's the only version of a revenue-based tax that might squeak through both houses of the Legislature, but consumers will no doubt pay a hefty price if it does. Free checking? It'll either disappear altogether or be available only to those who hold multiple accounts with hefty minimum balances. Talk to a teller for free? Forget it. Online and telephone banking? Sure, if you pay per transaction. Glad we have our money in out-of-state banks. While casinos. public employee unions and their water-carriers in Carson City have accused banks of not paying their "fair share" of taxes, the willfully ignorant here forget this basic fact: The state