logo
Democrats ignore Nevada's upside down, regressive, and unfair tax structure. Again.

Democrats ignore Nevada's upside down, regressive, and unfair tax structure. Again.

Yahoo09-06-2025
The Nevada Legislature Building underwent a face lift prior to this year's session, but the Democratic legislative leadership's economic agenda, inasmuch as there is one, remained the same as it ever was. (Photo: Richard Bednarski/Nevada Current)
Democrats nationwide are awash in conflicting opinions about how to stanch the loss of young and working class voters before the U.S. backslide into autocracy is irreversible, if it's not already.
Some Democrats blame 'wokeness.' Some Democrats say the party needs to lean in on kitchen-table issues. Some think they should do nothing and just wait for Trump and Trumpism to collapse under the weight of its self-generated slagheap of corruption, lawlessness, malice, and counterproductive policies. Some Democrats, including at least half of those in Nevada's congressional delegation, seem to think the best way to inspire the electorate is to make sure every sentence they mutter includes a noun, a verb, and the word 'bipartisan.' And on and on.
And then there are Nevada's Democratic state legislative leaders. They chose to meet this inflection point by yet again allowing generous public subsidies for deep-pocketed Californians to serve as the featured attraction of this year's recently concluded Nevada legislative session.
Yes, ding dong, the film tax credit bill is dead. Praise be, etc.
But Democratic legislative leadership — Senate Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro and Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager — whether by design or neglect, allowed a government giveaway scheme to film corporations to become the one and only thing about the 2025 Legislature working class voters, especially young ones, most likely ever heard about. Assuming they heard about anything legislative at all.
Ever since it was plopped onto the Nevada policy landscape more than a decade ago by then-Democratic state senator, now Democratic state Attorney General Aaron Ford, the film tax credit has always been a predominantly Democratic production. One of the chief legislative sponsors of this year's version was state Sen. Daniele Monroe-Mareno, who also currently serves as chair of the state Democratic Party.
To reiterate, a critical mass of voters nationwide, including voters on which Democrats once relied, are marinading in nihilism and cynicism, and evidently don't grasp the goals, agenda, priorities — the point — of the Democratic Party, or just cold stopped caring.
Against that backdrop, Democrats in Nevada put on a big show about a scheme to use nearly $2 billion of public money to enrich two of California's largest film corporations and one of the nation's most prominent corporate developers of master-planned communities.
Weird.
In Nevada, Democrats over the last ten years have been very successful at doing what(ever) it takes to win and maintain majorities in both houses of the state Legislature, an endeavor which, luckily for them, had more to do with voter registration numbers and redistricting power than policy positions.
As a result, mean-spirited reactionary policies that are racist, poverty-shaming, misogynistic, anti-LGBTQ, anti-democracy, anti-immigrant, and anti-rights — policies designed first and foremost to feed the MAGAfolk — are (mostly) not enacted here.
Keeping such pernicious policies (mostly) at bay in Nevada is no small consideration. Winning enough elections to block Republicans from enacting that stuff is arguably the crowning state-level achievement of contemporary Nevada Democrats.
But when it comes to pro-active progress, specifically on economic policy, the Nevada Democratic legislative agenda, inasmuch as there is one, is tired (they're 'for' education), and worse than useless (inveterate footsie-playing with industries, mischaracterizing public giveaways to private corporations as 'economic development').
In the meantime, with only the occasional exception, they can rarely be bothered to acknowledge, let alone confront, the fact that the state has one of the country's most upside-down tax structures, in which the smaller your income, the higher the percentage of it you pay in taxes.
Giving working families a break by lowering the state's aggressively high sales tax rate would leave a budget hole that would have to be filled by generating revenue elsewhere (evergreen suggestion: raising Nevada's lowest-in-the-nation gaming tax). Under Nevada's constitution, raising or creating taxes requires a two-thirds vote of both legislative houses, majorities Democrats have not had and would probably be afraid to use if they did.
In Washington state, which is bluer than Nevada but whose residents have also suffered under a regressive tax structure, it took 15 years of advocacy from organizations and politicians to finally enact a tax on the ultra-wealthy (another good suggestion).
Reforming Nevada's tax structure would likewise be a long process. That's assuming Democrats and, for that matter, their most powerful progressive organizational allies, would do something they so far haven't: get started on a public education campaign advocating tax fairness that would also enable the state to be a little less cheap and a little more responsible when it comes to funding public services, programs, and projects.
If only the state's Democratic legislative brain trust had spent as much time advocating for an equitable tax system as they've spent advocating and/or rubber-stamping government handouts to corporations and billionaires.
The first quarter of the 21st century has been economically harder on Nevada than any other state. It's perhaps a testament to the state Democratic Party's long-hailed organizational oomph that Nevada didn't go for Trump in 2016 and 2020, and only finally fell to Trump last year.
It remains to be seen if and how Democrats nationally can generate enough trust and optimism to pull the country out of its degenerative spiral.
If they do, there might be some Nevadans, including some state legislators, who will make a meaningful contribution to the effort.
But if prior performance is any indication of future results, it's hard to imagine Nevada legislative and party leadership having much of a role in that. At least not in a good way.
A version of this column originally appeared in the Daily Current newsletter, which is free and which you can subscribe to here.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

California voters support EV tax incentives, but are wary of sales mandates says poll
California voters support EV tax incentives, but are wary of sales mandates says poll

Yahoo

time10 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

California voters support EV tax incentives, but are wary of sales mandates says poll

California drivers don't want to lose their electric vehicle tax incentives, but even voters in one of the bluest states are wary about reviving plans to phase out gas cars. Voters are split down the middle on whether California should stick to its guns on its Trump-blocked plans to phase out sales of gas cars by 2035, according to an exclusive POLITICO-Citrin Center-Possibility Lab poll. Only 46 percent of the more than 1,400 registered voters surveyed said they support the policy, while 47 percent said no. Yes, there was an obvious partisan split: 60 percent of Democrats said they backed the phase-out, compared with 40 percent of independents and 31 percent of Republicans. But the results offer a note of caution for Gov. Gavin Newsom, who directed the California Air Resources Board to start writing new vehicle emissions rules after Republicans revoked the state's sales mandates for cars and heavy-duty trucks in June. 'None of us really like the idea of government intervening to take something away from us,' said Dan Sperling, a former California Air Resources Board member and director of the University of California, Davis' Institute for Transportation Studies. 'That's even the most liberal of us.' Poll respondents are more bought into Newsom's plan to backfill the soon-to-be-defunct $7,500 federal EV tax credit. Nearly two-thirds — 64 percent — said they would support state-funded tax incentives once the federal subsidy ends Sept. 30, as part of the Trump administration's ongoing attacks on clean energy policy. That question again showed a partisan divide, with 80 percent of Democrats saying they back the approach, compared with 60 percent of independent voters and just 43 percent of Republicans. But the overall result bolsters Newsom's push to backfill incentives that the Biden administration used to coax drivers off fossil fuels, as he suggested using cap-and-trade revenues last year and directed state agencies to consider in a June executive order. But Jack Citrin, a veteran political science professor at UC Berkeley and partner on the poll, said a closer look at the poll results shows that Democrats need to keep affordability in mind. He pointed to the fact that 28 percent of respondents said they'd support new EV incentives only if gas prices aren't impacted and another 20 percent said they should be reserved for low-income buyers, reflecting the fact that cost of living was the top concern of voters polled. And 64 percent of respondents said gasoline prices are putting a significant, extreme or moderate burden on their household budgets. 'That reflects a concern with the cost of all of this,' Citrin said. 'Yes, we're for environmental protection. Yes, we're for all of this, just as long as it doesn't cost a lot.' The poll comes as state agencies released a joint report Tuesday with recommendations for countering Trump's assault, calling on lawmakers to bolster tax incentives, improve charging infrastructure and regulate facilities that attract polluting trucks, but offering few specific timelines or dollar figures. CARB Chair Liane Randolph framed the report — which Newsom asked for in his June order — as a first step in the state's defense against a hostile federal government. 'Clean air efforts are under siege, putting the health of every American at risk,' she said during a press briefing. 'California is continuing to fight back and will not give up on cleaner air and better public health.' Sperling called the report a surprisingly 'modest document,' and said it lacks the specificity he hoped to see. 'The word I would use is disconcerting,' Sperling said when asked about where California stands in its fight against Trump. The POLITICO-Citrin Center-Possibility Lab poll was fielded by TrueDot, the artificial intelligence-accelerated research platform, in collaboration with the Citrin Center and Possibility Lab at UC Berkeley and POLITICO. The public opinion study, made possible in part with support from the California Constitution Center, was conducted in the field between July 28 and Aug. 12. The sample of 1,445 registered voters was selected at random by Verasight, with interviews conducted in English and Spanish, and includes an oversample of Hispanic voters. The modeled error estimate for the full sample is plus or minus 2.6 percent. The policy influencer study was conducted from July 30 to Aug. 11, among 512 subscribers to POLITICO Pro, and the modeled error estimate is plus or minus 3.7 percent. Like this content? Consider signing up for POLITICO's California Climate newsletter.

The Political Beat Candidate Guide: Charlotte City Council—District 4
The Political Beat Candidate Guide: Charlotte City Council—District 4

Yahoo

time10 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

The Political Beat Candidate Guide: Charlotte City Council—District 4

Democratic incumbent Renee Johnson is facing a challenge from Wil Russell. The winner will serve on the next Charlotte City Council. There is no opposition in November. District 4 is composed of the northeast section of Charlotte, including University City. The district stretches from The Plaza to the city limits. For more information on this race, watch this story by the Political Beat: The Political Beat asked questions of each candidate in the races. Below are their unedited responses. Renee Johnson What is your occupation? Charlotte City Councilmember (District 4) and Founder/Chief Development Officer, Triumph Services (nonprofit behavioral health & peer support). I'm also a Certified Brain Injury Specialist. Why are you running? To keep centering people over profit and protecting truly equitable housing, preventing displacement, improving infrastructure and transit, and making government more transparent and accountable. Since 2019, I've delivered results and ensured community voices drive City decisions. What is the most important issue and how do you plan to address it? Housing stability and anti-displacement. I advanced the $100M Housing Trust Fund (including homeownership tools), fought for source-of-income protections, supported the Anti-Displacement effort, and built the District 4 Community Coalition to keep residents at the table. I'll expand preservation, strengthen tenant protections, and pair housing with infrastructure and transit investments. How are you voting on the sales tax increase referendum for transit and why? I recognize the urgent need to fund safer streets, sidewalks, and reliable transit. I'm undecided and will base my decision on clear, enforceable commitments: equitable investments in historically under-served areas, accountability and transparency, specific project lists and timelines, and measurable outcomes for safety, congestion relief, and access to jobs. I championed Charlotte's first-ever infrastructure meeting, which laid the foundation for the Strategic Mobility Plan—so I understand the importance of investing wisely and equitably in our future. Do you support Charlotte City Council's settlement with CMPD Chief Johnny Jennings? Why or why not? I support resolving leadership matters in a way that protects taxpayers, maintains stability, and upholds accountability. Any settlement should be transparent about costs and terms, set clear expectations for leadership transitions, comply with NC statute, and strengthen public trust. My priority is accountability and fiscal responsibility. How should Charlotte City Council address working conditions and pay issues raised by the SEIU at Charlotte Douglas International Airport? The Charlotte City Council can strengthen our procurement policies to set clear standards for the vendors whom we contract, since we cannot directly control the wages of private employers. The effort to advance this conversation was blocked because there was opposition by 1 or more councilmembers; consequently, our rules require a majority vote in order to place an item on the agenda when there's opposition. That should concern all residents, because it limits debate and essentially amounts to censorship of issues that deserve a public hearing. I will continue pushing for fair standards and a more transparent, democratic process on the council. What sets you apart from your opponents? Experience, independence, and results. I fight for the anti-displacement of residents impacted by Charlotte's explosive growth, while my opponent is a developer who benefits personally from that same development. I created the District 4 Coalition, secured ASL interpretation for 132,000 hard-of-hearing residents, and championed the city's first public infrastructure meeting. As a nonprofit leader with real estate experience, I understand both economic growth and the human impact of displacement. Will Russell What is your occupation? Senior Construction Manager Why are you running? I am running for office to provide leadership and professionalism to Charlotte City Council. My goal is to serve the city and its residents by solving problems and enacting solutions. What is the most important issue and how do you plan to address it? I address the affordable housing crisis every day – it is at the core of what I do as a construction professional. As an affordable housing developer, I experience firsthand the barriers our current zoning policies create. These restrictive regulations prevent us from building the volume of affordable housing our communities urgently need. We must add greater flexibility to our zoning policies to allow for more diverse, higher density and cost-effective housing solutions. Housing options like duplexes, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and pocket neighborhoods will allow us to create communities when developing land. These are the types of units we, as a city, should be incentivizing developers to build. How are you voting on the sales tax increase referendum for transit and why? As Charlotte continues to grow, it will need a transportation system that grows with it. Our bus system is not sufficient or dependable enough to meet the needs of its citizens. To produce an equitable and reliable bus system, it must provide connections between the employment centers and residential areas. It must also have travel times that, at a minimum, match the travel times of a private vehicle. To do that all existing bus routes must be reconfigured to provide cross-town connections and facilitate multiple connections throughout the routes. Additionally, the hours of operation must be the same for all routes. The transit tax will provide an income stream that will allow Charlotte to invest in building a transportation system thatwillmeet the needs of a growing city. However, income alone will not fix transportation in Charlotte. We must also create land use policies that complement and encourage appropriate development along transportation corridors. Do you support Charlotte City Council's settlement with CMPD Chief Johnny Jennings? Why or why not? Based on the publicly available evidence, it appears that the CMPD's police chief employment status was threatened by an elected official. This could have potentially exposed the City to legal issues. Problems between elected officials and city departments should be resolved in ways that do not expose the city to potential legal actions. As a member of the city council, I would work to ensure that issues like these are resolved through proper channels and proper communication. How should Charlotte City Council address working conditions and pay issues raised by the SEIU at Charlotte Douglas International Airport? Charlotte City Council will need to work with multiple groups to help address working conditions and pay issues at Charlotte Douglas Airport. Charlotte would need to work closely with the North Carolina General Assembly to determine what authority the State will allow the City to exercise when dealing with pay and contract issues. Charlotte City Council would also need to work with airline carriers and airport businesses to help craft a solution to address the pay and working condition issues. What sets you apart from your opponents? I am the most qualified candidate for the following reasons: -vast knowledge of zoning policy, affordable housing, and construction -proven ability to collaborate with neighbors and developers to directly benefit District 4 -Will provide visionary leadership and continued advocacy for District 4 on council -minimal learning curve/ability to start addressing Charlotte's issues on day 1. (WATCH BELOW: Action 9: Man switched phone companies because of promotion, but says carrier didn't follow through) Solve the daily Crossword

Trump's D.C. Goon Squads Are Un-American
Trump's D.C. Goon Squads Are Un-American

Yahoo

time10 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump's D.C. Goon Squads Are Un-American

When President Donald Trump first declared a crime emergency in the nation's capital and sent hundreds of federal law enforcement agents to patrol its streets, this district resident had a hard time taking it too seriously. The initial images of bored Drug Enforcement Administration agents strolling past perplexed joggers on the National Mall were more clownish than carceral. Local street resistance to the occupation was limited to a drunk guy throwing a sandwich at a federal agent. But inevitably, as this operation has dragged on, things have taken a darker turn. The sandwich-thrower was overcharged and rearrested in a needless, publicized show of force. Masked federal agents have set up an unconstitutional checkpoint, violently arrested at least one delivery driver, and filmed themselves tearing down a banner protesting their presence in the city. Each day, more and more National Guard members pour into the capital. The conversation about Trump's declared crime emergency has understandably, albeit unhelpfully, provoked a lot of discourse about how safe D.C. is, whether a federalized local police department will make it safer, whether federal agents are being deployed in the right places and going after the right crimes, and on and on. This incessant crime conversation has distracted from just how un-American Trump's show of force in the nation's capital is. Uniformed troops and masked federal agents doing routine law enforcement at the command of the president is just not how we do things in the United States. The entire point of the U.S. Constitution is to prevent the federal government from becoming a despotism, and one of the primary ways it does this is by limiting how many men with guns it has at its disposal. This is why the Constitution places strict constraints on maintaining a standing army. It's why there are only three crimes mentioned in the Constitution, none of which would plausibly require federal agents to patrol U Street. It's why questions of what to criminalize and who to prosecute were largely left up to the states. The Third Amendment is mostly treated as an anachronistic joke today. In fact, it is a load-bearing part of the Constitution that makes clear that the military and the police are different things and that Americans should not have to tolerate the presence of armed agents of the states as a routine part of daily life. Obviously we've deviated considerably from this ideal since the founding generation. The federal criminal code is now extensive. The feds' wars on drugs, terror, and immigration have grown the number of militarized federal agents doing law enforcement activities. Federal money has subsidized a similar trend of militarization of state and local police forces. Reason has been decrying this trend for decades. In his book Rise of the Warrior Cop, Radley Balko writes about how the trend of increased police militarization has eroded the "Symbolic Third Amendment" and the free society it protects. It's darkly ironic then that, after decades of politicians of both parties in D.C. gifting the federal government vast powers to police the rest of the country, a militarized federal police force is now being deployed on the streets of America's capital against its residents. This is why arguments about whether federal agents could be more effectively deployed in less visible, higher crime areas of the city are completely beside the point. The federal government acting as a beat cop is inimical to our constitutional design, regardless of how effective its efforts are. That D.C. is a federal district might seem to complicate this point. In fact, it reinforces it. Despite being a constitutionally peculiar special district, a lot of effort has been put into giving D.C. a local police force that does not practically function as an arm of the federal government. Even in the seat of federal power, it's understood that a force of federal agents policing everyday life is not something ordinary citizens should have to put up with. That Trump has the power to federalize the D.C. police or deploy the D.C. National Guard doesn't stop his actions from being authoritarian and offensive to the spirit of the Constitution, even if it doesn't violate the letter of it. It's also cold comfort that Trump's declared crime emergency is clearly mostly a performative act to rile up the libs and not a serious effort at combating crime. While the president is staging the performance, it's disconcerting that he's opted to cast himself as the villain in the play. Moreover, the longer federal agents are deployed on D.C. streets, the greater the odds that more serious abuses do happen. It's true that D.C. today is not as locked down as it has been in recent years. The police-enforced curfews during the George Floyd protests or the security cordons that sprang up after the January 6 riots were a lot more visible and heavy-handed. Excessive as those police actions were (particularly the latter), they were at least being done as an emergency response to widespread breakdowns in public order. Trump is rolling out the feds in D.C. to do routine law enforcement. That's un-American. The post Trump's D.C. Goon Squads Are Un-American appeared first on Solve the daily Crossword

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store