Why "Down Ballot" Should Be at the Top of Voters' Minds

Buried at the bottom of today's RGJ story on the high stakes SD 15 race between incumbent State Senators Greg Brower (R-Reno) and Sheila Leslie (D-Reno) now running in the same district that may determine control of the State Senate next year, I found this shiny nugget that may really change the dynamic of Legislature campaigns.

Leslie feels Brower hurt students and parents involved in public education by voting against the final budget deal of the 2011 session because it contained about $700 million in taxes that were scheduled to expire but were renewed with the budget deal.

“In the last session, after Sen. Brower was appointed to his position, he had a record that was very extreme,” Leslie said. “The constituents in this district are very unhappy with that, especially with education.”

Leslie said Brower will also have to answer for being among a handful of senators who voted against the final state budget deal endorsed by Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval, because it contained revenue from a group of taxes that were scheduled to expire in 2011.

So why is this so important? And why is this a game changer? Let me explain. For once, taxes may finally be touched on as a legitimate policy issue worth discussing intelligently, not another forbidden "four letter word" (never mind it actually has five letters!).

Now of course, this situation is different. At the end of the 76th session, we only saw an agreement to extend the tax deal already put in place in 2009. And it's probably less scary for Democrats to embrace this as a campaign issue now that Brian Sandoval has to own it.

Still, this reflects what may be a big change in campaign strategy. Instead of trying to avoid the subject, as so many candidates did in 2010, we may see a real head-on collision.

And frankly, we may need it. As I hinted at last week, several states are considering legalizing some form of internet gambling. We can't always depend on the gaming industry as our only stable source of income. We also can't continue to underfund the critical public infrastructure that we need to attract more businesses here and diversify our economy. Something's got to give.

And perhaps, something will this year. Even the RAN poll done by Republican polling outfit Public Opinion Strategies found a willingness among Nevada voters to talk taxes. So it's likely that the other private polls in the field are showing similar results. And when considering that and the proposed ballot initiatives already making a mark on the tax talk, this may be the ideal time for Legislature candidates to actually talk about what happens in Carson City and why they want to go there.

And remember this. Even if one or more of the tax initiatives pass, there will still be important fiscal decisions made in the Legislature next year. And considering everything from mining taxes to funding public education are likely to be big issues looming over Carson City next year, this election may really be the most important Nevada has faced in a long time.

The Woes at Home

Yikes.

Reno is facing a potential $7 million budget shortfall next year, according to preliminary budget figures presented to the Reno City Council Wednesday.

In all, the city is facing $152 million in estimated costs for 2013, down from $166 this year, and only $145 million in revenue to pay for them, representing a $21 million decrease in total general fund revenues.

The decline is largely the result of Washoe County ending its 12-year-old contract with the city and the $11.3 million it sent Reno each year to pay for fire services in the Truckee Meadows Fire Protection District.

Other factors include an estimated $2 million, or 5 percent, decline in property tax revenues, falling income from things like sewer and water fees and federal and state grants expiring.

As you can clearly see, it's not just the state that's facing major revenue problems. It's now "trickling down" to the local level as well. Clearly, the City of Reno faces even more difficult decisions ahead. However, the budget blues don't stop at the Washoe County line.

Henderson's largest employer is cutting jobs again. The City Council recently approved $5 million to fund a fifth round of the Voluntary Employee Severance Program, which is expected to result in the vacancy of close to 100 jobs, projected to save the city $5.3 annually.

Since the program's inception in January 2009, 242 of the city's 1,839 full-time employees have accepted the buyout package, resulting in a savings of $31 million, according to Richard Derrick, the city's financial director.

Fred Horvath, the human resources director, is not surprised that so many Henderson employees have chosen to participate.

"I've done this six times in the private sector before I came to the city of Henderson," said Horvath. "We built it so it would be attractive to people, because if you really want to see people take advantage of it and leave the organization, you have to make it worth their while to do so. Because they're leaving, for many of them, the best job they'll ever have."

As we've been seeing lately, Henderson has faced some extraordinary problems lately. The police chief is stepping down after the revelation of a horrifying display of police brutality (used against someone suffering from diabetic shock!), and the City Council is now trying to recover from the resignation of Kathleen Vermillion. Yet even as the city has had to deal with more high-profile and salacious scandals, Henderson still has that pesky budget deficit to close as well.

So what caused all this? Basically, local governments were betting on "The Growth Machine" to keep fueling more real estate speculation, thereby continuing to fill up their coffers. But once the real estate bubble imploded and the overall economy collapsed, what was once thought to be "reliable" cash flow suddenly disappeared.

And in case that wasn't bad enough, the Legislature raided local governments' treasuries by turning many services that had been funded by the states into unfunded mandates that the counties are expected to carry out. So now local governments will have to provide services that used to be handled by the state, further hurting municipal budgets. (Remember that there's likely a "domino effect" in additional service requirements handed down by the state forcing local governments to cut funding elsewhere.)

If anything, our cities and counties need more support to continue functioning properly. But instead, the state has been eyeing their money as an "easy way out" to fill the state's deficit. And this brings us back to what we were discussing earlier this week: Why are giant multinational corporations still getting bailed out while our counties and cities are getting hosed down?

It's easy to complain to the city or county when police service isn't adequate, or when some road is decrepit, or perhaps when a park is in disrepair. But when the city/county had money that was supposed to take care of all that taken away by the state, what is the city/county supposed to do?

Desert Beacon pondered this over a year ago, when Brian Sandoval was proposing even deeper cuts and even more shifting of burdens to the local level.

There is another question implicit in the whole notion of rankings — what is the balance between state and local collections? Are the collections 5% state and 95% local? Are they 50%-50%? This does make a difference. In Nevada, where it is quite possible that the state will seek to shift the burdens of enforcement, application, and implementation to the local level — does the local government have the tax revenue resources to take on the responsibilities thus shifted?

If the local governments do not have the revenues necessary to enforce, apply, and implement public programs then the cuts cascade down from the top. If, for example, the state no longer subsidizes the inspection of foster homes or ambulatory surgical centers, or the testing and reporting of water quality standards — then does the local or county government have the revenue resources available to take on those responsibilities? If not, then it’s reasonable to conclude that what we have is “less government” but not necessarily “better government.”

Going forward, Nevada will really have to fix this ongoing problem. And yes, I do believe it will have to involve changing our tax structure. Again, why do the likes of Barrick and Wal-Mart keep getting tax breaks while local governments are forced to do more with less? That's a question we really need to ponder more.

Fears of Californication?

Yesterday, prominent Nevada GOP power player, R&R big wig, (and confirmed Sandoval inner circle member) Pete Ernaut complained about the new push to bring tax initiatives to the ballot so Nevada voters can finally do what our Legislature apparently can not do. You tell me if you notice something familiar here.

“It should be warning to everybody because this is something that could very rapidly turn into the next iteration of the California ballot, where we have 10, 12, 13 ballot measures on a number of issues and you wake up one day and really you’ve taken the power away from the Legislature or the governor to make any decisions,” he said.

“And that’s really what they’re struggling with in California more than anything else is you have this entire apparatus in the California state Legislature that essentially has the ability to make decisions on about 5 percent or 6 percent of the entire California budget,” Ernaut said in an interview on the Nevada NewsMakers television show. “If we’re not careful, that’s the way that it will go.”

Now before I explain why I suspect Ernaut said this, I actually want to give him some props for pointing out what I've been saying here for several months. California, here we are!



As we were discussing on Sunday, California currently has three tax initiatives competing for voters' attention and support this year: one by civil rights attorney Molly Munger that seeks to raise income taxes on nearly everyone, one by Governor Jerry Brown (D) that mostly raises income taxes on the wealthy but also keeps in place a sales tax hike affecting everyone, and one by Courage Campaign and the California Federation of Teachers that only raises taxes on the ultra-wealthy earning more than $1,000,000 a year. All three promise to restore investment in public education that's been slashed to death, but all three also face challenges in the duration of the new revenue stream, as well as how much each of them can really pull in.

And of course, we can't forget how California got into this mess in the first place. Starting with the Prop 13 tax restructuring of 1978, followed by the education spending mandates in Prop 98 in 1988, followed by a whole series of special tax policies and spending formulae approved by the voters all through the 1990s and 2000s, California's budget has become an unmanageable fiscal hot mess. And especially because we as people like to "have it all" without ever paying for any of it, California faces chronic budget woes. (It turns out that passing spending mandates without finding the appropriate revenue to fund them causes huge budgetary problems. Surprise?)

However, not all of California's or Nevada's problems can be blamed on "we the people". The reason why Jerry Brown, Courage Campaign, and Molly Munger want to take their respective tax initiatives to the voters is because an intransigent and obstructive G-O-TEA minority in their Legislature refuses to consider any kind of sensible tax reform. And now that sensible Republicans like the late Bill Raggio and Kenny Guinn are distant memories for Republican leadership in our Legislature today, we're now facing the same problems. While I understand, and even sympathize with, Pete Ernaut's concern about "direct democracy run amok", what else are we the people supposed to do when our Legislature can't do its job and pass a workable budget?

And this brings me to the reason I suspect Pete Ernaut is really worried about the proposed tax initiatives: They're aimed at his clients. Ernaut seems to worry about the Legislature losing its authority on the budget now, but he didn't seem to mind Republican legislators giving a big, fat "Gov Wreck" rubber stamp to Brian Sandoval's original slashing of public education before the Nevada Supreme Court forced him to agree to extend the 2009 tax deal. But now that Monte Miller, the Nevada AFL-CIO, and Kermitt Waters are all aiming at Ernaut's top R&R clients, he all of a sudden wants the Legislature to set tax policy. Is that just because he thinks we the people will do what the Legislature hasn't done?

Republican pollster Glen Bolger, who does polling for the Retail Association of Nevada, revealed in his newest survey that Nevadans want the mining industry to pay its fair share.

Mining tax:

As you may know, there is a proposal to increase the state mining tax. I would like to read you
two statements that people are saying about the proposal. After I read each statement, please tell me which one comes closest to your own opinion.

Some people say increasing the state mining tax is a good idea because with the increase in the price of gold and other minerals, the mining industry is undergoing a boom time and should pay a higher tax rate.

... while...

Other people say an increase in the mining tax is a bad idea because at some point the price of gold and other minerals will drop back down to normal levels and a higher tax rate will hurt the industry and cost jobs.

Which statement comes closest to your own opinion?

58% GOOD IDEA

38% BAD IDEA

Now this explains why the mining industry is suing to block Monte Miller's mining tax initiative. Ernaut has probably seen similar private polls showing similar results. The more Nevadans learn about how multinational mining corporations have abused our tax code to pay virtually nothing for profitting off our natural resources, the angrier we get. And if the decision on how much to tax them moves from the Legislature to "we the people", the mining industry will probably have to kiss its sweetheart deal goodbye.

This probably also explains why "big bid'ness" power brokers (like Monte Miller?) fear the AFL-CIO's margin tax on big business. In addition to the mining industry, other big multinational corporations like to set up "on shore tax shelters" here in Nevada to avoid paying taxes. But really, what do we get out of it? After seeing them profit while Nevada families suffer from decaying schools and inadequate transportation infrastructure, Nevada voters may also be ready to finally make the big guys pay their fair share.

So in the end, Pete Ernaut may have a valid point in stating the problems with "ballot box budgeting" and waging electoral campaigns on tax policy. However when the Legislature won't tackle this, someone has to. And when Nevada is in real need of real reform that finally moves our tax code into the 21st century, we can't blame citizen activists for wanting to take matters into their own hands. And since Ernaut's own BFF in the Governor's Mansion encouraged obstruction on tax reform in Carson City last year, he should have realized that he helped bring "Californication" of Nevada policy making here.

Can You Do This All on Your Own?

Rejoice, Nevada! Taxable sales rose in December!

Taxable sales in Washoe County rose 6.1 percent in December from a year earlier, the state reported Monday, reflecting rising confidence among consumers at the height of the 2011 holiday shopping season.

“That’s reasonably strong given as serious as the recession has been,” said Mark Pingle, economist at the University of Nevada, Reno. “A normal rate is about 3 percent, so that (December figure) is an indicator that we’re coming out of the morass.” [...]

Statewide, taxable sales in December increased by 3.8 percent from December 2010, according to the report.

Happy, happy, joy, joy!

Strong performances in the car and clothing businesses during the Christmas season helped propel taxable sales in Clark County to a 9.5 percent gain in December over the same month a year ago.

The state Department of Taxation reported Monday that taxable sales reached $2.9 billion in Clark County.

For the first six months of the fiscal year, the increase is 7.4 percent, showing a continuing rebound.

The department said statewide taxable sales rose 3.8 percent to $4.2 billion for December. It said the state’s portion of the sales and use tax collected in December was $82.4 million or 2 percent higher than December 2010.

No really, this is great news. When we buy, we win. When consumers get back in the habit of participating in our economy, employers can afford to keep workers. This truly is good news.

Still, I can't help but think of the policy implications here. Remember that because Nevada has no (corporate or personal) income tax whatsoever, we're incredibly dependent upon casinos and consumers to pay our state's bills. Of course it may sound great to exclaim, "Nevada has no taxes!" However, that's not the truth. We have taxes... It's just that the bulk of them are paid by the middle class and working poor.

Nevada is heavily dependent on one of the most regressive forms of taxation ever devised: The Sales Tax. The chart illustrates just how regressive this type of taxation truly is — the lower one’s income the higher percentage of that income is expended on state and local taxation. The State Budget Office estimates that 25.8% of the state government’s tax revenue will be derived from sales and use taxes over the next two years. The next largest amount, 22.3%, is predicted to come from gaming taxes. We know from the State Comptroller’s Office that fully 9% of this State’s total income comes from the sales tax.

Think about it. This year's state budget was mostly riding on our purchases and what tourists did on Las Vegas Boulevard. Seriously, how f**ked up is that?

What we've learned over the years is that this tax system simply isn't sustainable any more. We need real, serious solutions... And solutions that correct the regressive burden on Nevada's working class families.

As we discussed yesterday, we can no longer rely on the casinos alone to save us. However we can't exclusively rely on you to carry this burden, either. Yes, you heard me right. While I'm sure the state really appreciates your contribution to the coffers in Carson City, it's just not fair for Nevada to demand so much from you when the biggest and most profitable corporations in this state pay virtually nothing.

Who's Afraid of Kermitt Waters?

He's brilliant. He's edgy. He's visionary. He's radical. And perhaps he's managed to bring folks together (while simultaneously driving away powerful players on the left and on the right) in a way that hardly anyone else has.



He's Kermitt Waters, and he wants to lower your taxes... Unless, that is, you're a multinational corporation looking for an "onshore tax shelter" here in Nevada. If that's the case, watch out.

But before Waters can even launch a campaign for his tax initiative, he has to sue in court to strike down the state statute that's been holding him back. And he's formed a strange alliance on this law suit, one that actually scares some local progressives. (I'll explain this later.)

On Saturday, I finally had a chance to meet Mr. Waters myself and ask him the questions that I sense many Nevadans have been wanting to ask. I started with what I thought was the most obvious: Why bring forth such a complicated and radical restructuring of Nevada's entire state budget that openly violates the single subject rule that only allows for an initiative to address one policy matter? Waters gave me a simple deadpan of an answer: "You want to give me $500,000?"

Waters complained about how expensive it is to push a ballot initiative. This led me to my next question: Why do this? Isn't this why we have a Legislature? Again, he gave a clear and concise answer: "Gaming and mining own The Legislature." He then went on to express his deep distrust of pretty much anyone and everyone in Carson City, and especially of what he considers the center of "booze, broads, and bribes". It seems that he's felt the same frustration with the way business is done in Carson City that most voters in Nevada (and especially Clark County) feel... But he's taking it to another level in threatening their power over perhaps the biggest decision made there, which is the one made every two years on the state budget.

Waters and I then went back to the matter of his law suit. He sounded especially frustrated over The Legislature intervening in the law suit, as well as Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto (D) sending this law suit to federal court.

I then asked about the other big elephant in the room: Is Kermitt Waters about to open a "Pandora's Box" of "tea party" crazy by making it easier for the likes of Chuck Muth and Richard Ziser to unleash the full radical right wish list, from TABOR to zygote personhood to domestic partnership repeal and more, on our ballots? After all, it's impossible that Chuck Muth is backing Waters' law suit because he likes Waters' tax plan. (Remember that if Waters wins this law suit, a precedent is set that will allow virtually everyone else to start collecting signatures to put whatever one wants on the ballot.) So what was Waters' answer? Simple: "If you don't like it, beat it at the damned polls. Don't kill the goose. Just beat them at the polls."

It's interesting. Kermitt Waters may be very cynical and pessimistic when it comes to the death of good policy caused by the people running Nevada's government, but he sounds hopeful and downright optimistic about the triumph of good policy among the people voting in Nevada elections. It sounded like he genuinely believes Nevada will be better off with more of the California/Arizona style direct democracy regularly practiced there than with what we have now.

OK, so Kermitt Waters likes direct democracy. But again, why pursue this long, complicated initiative when there are simpler initiatives floating around that are not being challenged in court? When I asked about the AFL-CIO's proposed business margin tax, Waters flatly dismissed it. "It's a waste of time. In three years, they'll take it off." And since the AFL-CIO proposal is just a statute instead of a constitutional amendment, he thinks it may face the same fate in the hands of The Legislature that the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act has experienced. Waters pretty much said the same thing about Monte Miller's proposed gaming and mining tax initiatives when I asked about those.

At this point, Kermitt Waters then dropped a bomb on me. He told me that other progressive organizations did not want to work with him on his initiative, and that they didn't want to touch this because of his association with Chuck Muth, and because they fear Waters' victory in court would lead to the likes of Muth and Ziser throwing the entire "tea party" wish list on Nevada ballots in a matter of no time.

When I asked him if the concerns of other progressives should be noted, Waters stood behind his plan. "We're trying to accomplish something. We'll get nothing done if we don't [change the rules on initiatives]. We'll all starve to death if we don't let someone get two hamburgers. This is just insane."

Now before I wrap this up, I want to give a reminder of what's at stake with Waters' initiative. If Kermitt Waters succeeds, his initiative will:

- Eliminate the property tax for single family homes

- Establish a 20% levy on mining companies

- Set up a gross receipts tax on businesses earning over $1 million a month

AND

- Use the new revenues to set up a fund separate from the state's general fund (so legislators and the Governor can't use any of this new money to cover everything else in the general fund and/or pay for new tax cuts somewhere else) to pay for a new system of Nevada appeals courts, increased investment in public education, more renewable energy investment, expanded health care coverage, and more.

Honestly, this is why I've personally been at conflict with myself on this. And this is why I was willing to meet with Kermitt Waters himself last weekend to hear his side of the story.

I personally believe Kermitt Waters is genuine in his desire to remake Nevada Government, and especially Nevada's broken budget process, for the better. And when glancing at everything in Waters' initiative, from renewable energy investment to public education investment to generating the new revenue our state so desperately needs, it really does read like a progressive's wish list come true.

However, I can also see that Waters' route isn't the only route that progressives have to use to enact needed reforms to our budget and our tax system. That's why later this week, we'll be looking at the other progressive tax proposal making waves: the AFL-CIO's. We'll probably also do more analysis, along with some needed comparison & contrast, on both initiatives later this week.

In talking with Kermitt Waters, I can see why he's become feared in recent years. He may be dismissed at times as a "gadfly", but he truly does have the determination to follow through on his fights. We'll have to see how far he wants to go on this one.

Why Do We Need Tax Reform?

Yesterday, we kicked off "Tax Week" here at Nevada Progressive with a look at the intersection of our past and our future. This morning, we'll take a closer look at why tax reform is so badly needed here in Nevada.

Yesterday, I had to book a room at the Silver Legacy in Downtown Reno for a meeting I have to attend early next month.



Strangely enough, after I booked I found this RGJ article noting Silver Legacy's troubles in paying off the mortgage. This seems so awkward for such a big, flashy casino... And it must be painful for those in Reno who had high hopes for Silver Legacy and what it would do for Downtown Reno.

When it opened in July 1995, the Silver Legacy Resort Casino was going to be Reno’s chance to revamp a gaming market that had not seen a major new property open in 17 years.

The Silver Legacy was the result of a partnership between the family-owned Eldorado Hotel & Casino and Circus Circus Enterprises run by Don Carano and CEO Clyde Turner respectively. [...]

And for awhile, the plan worked. For example, the Reno-Sparks gaming market pulled in $834 million in 1995 and by 2000 that revenue grew to nearly $1 billion, according to UNLV gaming statistics.

The idea behind the Silver Legacy was to create a “downtown synergy,” said Guy Rocha, Nevada’s former state archivist. It featured sky-walks connecting the Eldorado and the Circus Circus as well as dome that would house a 127-foot mining rig as the Silver Legacy’s center piece.

“And it really moved a lot of the casino focus to the north side of the railroad tracks and the north side of Commercial Row,” Rocha said. “It really changed the downtown focus a lot. And I think they did for a period of time, and perhaps still do, but the landscape has changed with gambling.”

And then, everything changed. And yes, we again have California to thank (or blame) for it.



California voters approved Proposition 5 in 1998 and gave the green light to tribal casinos. But after the California Supreme Court overturned Prop 5 as unconstitutional, then Governor Gray Davis (D) and several Native American tribes went back to the ballot in 2000 with a constitutional amendment, Prop 1A. But once Prop 1A passed with 65% of the vote in March 2000, tribal casinos were finally approved for good. And ever since then, California gaming has increasingly become a serious threat to Nevada gaming interests. Northern Nevada especially felt the brunt of competition from Sacramento and San Francisco area tribal casinos as fewer Northern California gamblers were making the drive through the Sierras to Reno.



And it's not just California that's posed a threat to Nevada casinos. Right now, it looks like Las Vegas is faring better. Air traffic at McCarran continues to improve, and key Strip player MGM Resorts has narrowed its losses and found firmer financial footing. However, look at the details and see where MGM is faring best. And look at what's landed both Wynn Resorts and Las Vegas Sands into a giant tub of legal hot water. Macau is now the largest gaming market in the world, and Las Vegas will have to get used to growing competition from abroad... And perhaps from the internet as well.

So why am I bringing up everything from a Downtown Reno casino near foreclosure to Macau to online poker? Simple. These stories should all be a wake-up call to Nevada. We can no longer rely only on casino revenue to survive.

This really shouldn't be news. Two years ago, we were being warned. And late last month, UNLV's Robert Lang was trying to remind us again of what needs to be done to fix Nevada's (and especially Southern Nevada's) failing infrastructure, diversify our economy, and allow for a healthier and more balanced economy to grow.

However, this doesn't come cheap. Our colleges badly need investment. So do K-12 public schools. So do our roads and mass transit operations. And so does our health care system. And we simply can't do this without new revenue.

As it is now, Nevada is dangerously over-reliant upon casinos and the gaming industry. During "the boom years", it may have been easy to dismiss this as silly "negative nelly" talk. But now that we're facing chronic budget woes and inadequate public infrastructure that hasn't kept up with population growth for some time, we can no longer ignore the obvious.

So this is why we're embarking on "Tax Week" here at Nevada Progressive. I'd like to do my part to help foster discussion of what we must do to secure a better future for Nevada, so expect multiple ideas and perspectives on how best to fix Nevada's broken tax system and fill those pesky budget holes for good.

Nevada Past... California Future?

This weekend, we've been seeing plenty of reflection on the life and legacy of Bill Raggio. The RGJ's Ray Hagar perhaps summed it up best.

As Nevada mourns the death of the “Lion of the Legislature,” some also mourn the end of an era, when bipartisanship ruled the day.

Nevada’s legislative process has gone from one of compromise to polarization, experts said. Raggio’s death only enforces the point.

“It’s been bad for a couple of sessions,” said former Assembly Speaker Joe Dini, D-Yerington, who began is legislative career in 1967 and ended it after the 2002 special session on medical malpractice. “I don’t know if will be any worse than it has been. I don’t think it will get any better.” [...]

“Clearly, that had a lot to do with it (resignation), the fact that Bill Raggio was a man who would set aside partisanship for the greater good,” said Billy Vassiliadis, a Nevada political consultant based in Las Vegas.

“He worked with three Democratic governors and three Republican governors and always worked in the spirit of getting something done,” Vassiliadis said. “And today, politics puts a premium on stopping things rather than making things happen. To stand in place rather than move forward was something he could not abide in.”

It's certainly something no one can deny at this point. And this is something we've been talking about here for quite some time. And at times, it seemed like Bill Raggio really came from a different era and represented the kind of politicking and governing that Nevada has been quickly losing. I really think Jon Ralston hit the nail on the head here.

In his later days, Raggio frequently lamented the propensity for Republicans to bow to the Temple of Norquist, pledging fealty to a no-tax pledge when circumstances could always change. In a world of one-note politicians, Raggio was operatic, often giving floor speeches that were the equivalent of arias. Indeed, one lobbyist, marveling at a Raggio performance, looked at me and said, “Like Pavarotti at the Met.”

Raggio also railed against those who only cared about re-election, a common affliction in Carson City, fearing they would never help move the state forward. As ex-Sen. Paul Laxalt said Friday, “Throughout my political career, I adhered to a policy of not allowing political differences to transform into personal differences. That was the essence of Bill Raggio. Sadly, that quality is sorely missing in today’s toxic political environment.”

I believe one of the more painful decisions of Raggio’s career was to endorse Harry Reid for re-election in 2010. Yes, he was furious that Sharron Angle had challenged him in a primary, but it was much more than personal. He thought she would be a disaster for the state, so he endorsed whom he considered the lesser off two evils.

There was nothing in it for him — he knew the blowback would be vicious, although I doubt he knew he would lose his leadership position because of his craven colleagues, some of whom I would bet a fortune voted for Reid but were afraid to say so.

A man of his word? Yes. A man of principle? Indeed. A man for all seasons, especially every other winter and spring in Carson City? Absolutely.

Perhaps none of Carson City's powers that be was surprised by Raggio's final act in 2010, but a whole lot of political junkies outside Nevada were. After all, why would someone of Raggio's stature do that to his own party? It's something that would be unheard of anywhere except Nevada...

But will we ever see something like that here in Nevada again?

Throw the party's base supporters some choice red meat... and risk that persuadable voters who tune into the media coverage recoil. But tamp down the fiery rhetoric in hopes of projecting a "kinder, gentler" image... and risk leaving the party faithful full of accusations that moderates are trying to water down the GOP brand.

'Tis a dilemma to be sure.

That's what's been happening just south of San Francisco, where California Republicans have been holding their convention. Newt Gingrich showed up yesterday to rally the base with cries of, "Drill, Baby, Drill!!!" And yes, reporters and observers there may have caught a glimpse of the Nevada Republican Party's future.

We've definitely seen a rightward shift of GOP legislators in recent sessions... And that really seemed to accelerate once Bill Raggio left Carson City for good. And now because of what's become endless intransigence on implementing long term budget solutions, some are now pushing for voters to take matters into our own hands. However, that isn't without its own risks.

The Field Poll showed the strongest backing for the tax hike on millionaires, with 63% of voters saying they were inclined to vote yes. Next came Brown's proposal, a temporary half-cent sales tax increase combined with higher income taxes on the wealthy, which drew 58% support.

But voters appear to reject a broad-based income tax hike proposed by wealthy Los Angeles civil rights lawyer Molly Munger, which received only 45% support, with 48% opposed. All three initiatives are in the signature-gathering phase before they can be placed on the November ballot.

The results roughly parallel a poll that Brown's political aides released in summary form this week. That showed Brown's proposal and the proposed levy on millionaires both with more than 50% support, while Munger's languished. Brown's aides also tested whether voters would support the taxes if all three appeared on the ballot and found in that scenario none would pass.

That's been the argument the governor and his aides have been pushing for three months now -- that Munger and the unions and activists who back the millionaire's tax need to drop their measures so they don't doom all of them.

But backers of the millionaire's tax seemed emboldened by the newest poll that continued to show theirs as the most popular. Nonetheless, the governor's aides and allies continued to urge others to back down.

Yes, believe it or not, California is also providing us with this glimpse into Nevada's future. There, Governor Jerry Brown (D) is pushing his own tax initiative that raises the income tax on top earners while also keeping in place a hike of the state's sales tax. However, he's now getting competition from both civil rights attorney Molly Munger's broad-based income tax and Courage Campaign's "Millionaires Tax". For so long, California's Legislature couldn't agree to much of any tax reform. But now, they're seeing an increasingly complicated and messy "ballot royale" over the competing tax initiatives.

And guess what? That's where we also seem to be headed... Except that I'm hoping we won't see an ugly food fight that pulls down all the tax reform initiatives. Instead, I want to do my part to inform and enlighten Nevada voters by starting a discussion this week on tax reform, ballot initiatives, and the future of Nevada Government. I'll be starting tomorrow by sharing with you a conversation I recently had with Kermitt Waters... Yes, the Kermitt Waters with the law suit causing so many Nevada politicos' heads to explode. Later this week, I'll also be posting conversations with those backing Nevada AFL-CIO whiz Danny Thompson's business margin tax initiative. Who knows, maybe we'll even dig more into Monte Miller's tax proposal?

As I've been saying here for some time, we in Nevada have to prepare for serious change. Since we first heard the saddening news of Bill Raggio's passing, we've been reflecting plenty on what's already been changing. And while I don't believe we're destined to become a carbon copy of California (or Arizona, or Colorado, or any other state, for that matter), we can no longer deny that both the dynamics of legislating in Carson City and the increasing frustration of Nevada voters outside Carson City are leading us to consider something never before seen here, even if it's something California and Arizona regularly see: ballot box budgeting.

There's obviously a reason why so many are so devastated by the loss of Raggio. In many ways, this does feel like the end of an era. But now if progressives want to embark on a new era and fix what's become regularly broken, then we may really need to rethink how we've advocated tax and budget reform. It may finally be time to face the voters, and face our future.