Dem. leadership's tax plan would hurt Nevada's economy, impose destructive tax instruments
Here are NPRI's thoughts on the Democratic plan to increase taxes by around $1.2 billion and increase Nevada's general fund spending from $6.4 billion in the current biennium to $7.1 billion in the next one.
NPRI analyst: Dem. leadership's tax plan would hurt Nevada's economy, impose destructive tax instruments
LAS VEGAS - In response to legislative Democrats' proposal to increase taxes in Nevada by approximately $1.2 billion over the next two years, Geoffrey Lawrence, the deputy director of policy at the Nevada Policy Research Institute, released the following comments:
"If the goal of legislative Democrats is to cripple the long-term potential for growth in Nevada's economy, this plan is the perfect vehicle. Their proposal to seize more wealth from private families and transfer it to highly-paid government bureaucrats signals a singular arrogance on behalf of the majority-party leadership toward hard-working Nevadans.
"Nevadans in the private sector have seen their standard of living decimated over the past three years while government workers, feeding off private workers' productivity, continue a life of luxury about which most taxpayers can only dream. 'Effective' unemployment in the private sector is still approaching 24 percent, while many workers who have retained their jobs have seen dramatic reductions in wages and benefits. Yet public-sector pay - already higher than comparable private sector rates prior to the recession - has continued to increase. This is a caste system, and a direct insult to Nevada taxpayers."
Lawrence acknowledged that no tax system is perfect and that every tax instrument imposes a unique set of distortions on economic activity. Indeed, last year, NPRI published an analysis of the Nevada tax system that evaluated various tax instruments based on the criteria of revenue volatility, economic efficiency, simplicity and tax equity.
"The Democratic leadership should be applauded for at last recognizing the destructive impacts of the modified business tax and acknowledging the need to lower Nevada's high sales tax rate. However, these reforms need to be done in a revenue-neutral manner, along the lines outlined by NPRI in its 'One Sound State' proposal. Among the key conclusions of that report was that in order to minimize the economic distortions caused by taxation, the tax burden should be kept to a minimum.
"In addition, some of the tax instruments that legislative Democrats have proposed would impose even more adverse consequences than the current tax system. The margin tax - structurally very similar to the infamous gross receipts tax Nevada policymakers rejected in 2003 - is one of the most economically distorting tax instruments available to lawmakers because it 'pyramids' up the supply chain. The tax is assessed at every stage of production, meaning that complex goods will be subject to the tax many times over. Not only would it discourage high-tech jobs from coming to Nevada, it will make the state seriously uncompetitive. The Democratic plan essentially shuts the door on any hope of economic diversification.
"Democratic leaders further indicated that their proposed margin tax would be 'adaptable' to differentiate among goods and services providers - meaning that some industries could be taxed arbitrarily at higher rates. This would open the door to a nightmare of rent-seeking at the Nevada Legislature, since those with the most lobbyists would pay the fewest taxes.
"Despite the rhetoric of the Democratic leadership, Nevada already has ample revenue to provide basic government services. Data from the US Census Bureau shows that Nevada's per capita state and local tax collections rank near the national median, at 28th - and that was before the 2009 tax hikes took effect. However, most of this money has been spent ineffectively, resulting in a relatively poor quality of services."
Earlier this year, NPRI's "Better Budgeting for Better Results" policy study highlighted specific measures lawmakers can take to save more than $3.5 billion during the current budget cycle while maintaining or increasing the quality of services.
"It is irresponsible of lawmakers to speak of raising taxes on Nevada families when they have been unwilling to find billions of dollars in savings. The proposed tax increases have nothing to do with maintaining the quality of services - that can be done simply by changing the way money is spent.
"Democratic leaders have signaled an unwillingness to exact accountability over the use of public funds. If meaningful reform were enacted in the areas of K-12 and higher education, Medicaid, collective bargaining and prevailing wage laws, then the state could improve results with fewer dollars. The party leadership's hubris in ignoring these issues - while increasing the burden on struggling Nevada families - is shameful."
Additional information:
• Better Budgeting for Better Results study
• One Sound State, Once Again study
Read moreRefresher: Why a franchise tax is bad tax policy
With the Las Vegas Sun reporting that Legislative Democrats plan on proposing a $1+ billion tax increase later today, it's time for a refresher on why a franchise tax (a modified version of a gross receipts tax) is bad policy.
The point of this post is to show why a franchise tax is a poor tax instrument, regardless of how many tax dollars you believe Nevada needs to collect.
Let's start with the basics: What is a franchise tax (referred to here as a gross receipts tax here)?
Gross receipts taxes have a simple structure, taxing all business sales with few or no deductions. Because they tax transactions, they are often compared to retail sales taxes. However, they differ in a critical way. While well designed sales taxes apply only to final sales to consumers, gross receipts taxes tax all transactions, including intermediate business-to-business purchases of supplies, raw materials and equipment. As a result, gross receipts taxes create an extra layer of taxation at each stage of production that sales and other taxes do not - something economists call "tax pyramiding."The Tax Foundation has a full explanation of the consequences of "tax pyramiding" and other structural problems with the gross receipts tax here, but this negative consequence is especially worth highlighting, as Nevada's politicians acknowledge the need for private-sector investment and growth.
Competitiveness: A gross receipts tax interferes with the capacity of individuals and businesses to compete with those in other states and other parts of the world. The tax embedded in prices grows as the share of a production chain within the state increases, so there is incentive to purchase business inputs from outside the state. It discourages capital investment by adding to the cost of factories, machinery, and equipment, and the disincentive increases as more of those capital goods are produced in the taxing state. This tax structure does not promote the growth and development of the state.In summary, the economists at the Tax Foundation strongly denounce the gross receipts tax.
There is no sensible case for gross receipts taxation. The old turnover taxes - typically adopted as desperation measures in fiscal crisis - were replaced with taxes that created fewer economic problems. They do not belong in any program of tax reform.Previously, Sen. Steven Horsford changed his stance on imposing a corporate income tax, from supporting to opposing, because he recognized the inherent instability in the corporate income tax.
A review of the literature and the problems inherent in any gross receipts tax should encourage Horsford and other legislators to make the same change regarding a gross receipts tax.
Regardless of how many tax dollars you want the state to have, a gross receipts tax distorts the marketplace, is inequitable and, overall, is a destructive tax instrument.
There is no sensible case for gross-receipts taxation.
Dems plan
NV Dems want to raise your taxes by $1.5 billion
That number was first reported by Ralston on Twitter.
Dem plan: Sunsets off, no more payroll tax, services tax, phased-in franchise tax. Should raise about $1.5B.Legislative Democrats likely won't officially release the plan until tomorrow at 10 am, but let's consider what this means - in the middle of the worst economic situation in the entire country, Democrats want to increase spending by over 20 percent and pass the largest tax hike in Nevada's history onto individuals in the struggling private sector.
After all of his budgetary add backs, Gov. Brian Sandoval is proposing a budget of around $6.2 billion. For comparison, Nevada spent about $6.4 billion in its last budget.
If Democrats are going to eliminate the $190 million loan in Sandoval's budget (unconfirmed), this would push Nevada's General Fund spending up to $7.5 billion, a 17 percent increase. If the Democrats kept the $190 million loan, general fund spending would go up to $7.7 billion, a 20 percent increase in spending.
At a time when the private sector unemployment rate is over 13 percent, businesses have had their revenue decline by up to two-thirds and private-sector workers have faced pay cuts of 50 percent or more, to suggest that government needs to grow by 20 percent and Nevadans should have to pay $1.5 billion more in taxes is the height of fiscal irresponsibility and the tax-and-spend liberal philosophy.
Live blogging the Assembly and Senate's closing of the K-12 education budget
You can watch live here. Agenda is here. Ralston's tweeted that Democratic legislators are looking to add $600 million to the K-12 education budget.
If that's the case, total DSA spending (how the state funds education) would increase - yes, INCREASE - by about $300 million. More details here (add $600 million to the figures in that blog post to get the $300 million increase).
It's 12:28 and the Committee Chambers just cleared out. I'm (unfortunately) in Las Vegas, so I'm watching the live streaming. I'll keep you updated.
12:40: And we're underway. Let's start with an important statistic. In the last 50 years, Nevada has nearly tripled inflation-adjusted, per-pupil spending without increasing student achievement. More money won't increase student achievement.
12:42: Up first, the governor's staff, Heidi Gansert and Andrew Clinger.
12:44: Groan, Gansert announces funding restored for class size reduction and all-day kindergarten. (Neither program increases student achievement.) In total, Sandoval wants to give $241 million more to K-12 education, $20 million to NSHE.
12:46: Sandoval wants to spend more, despite having a $190 million loan in his budget and the fact that increasing education spending in Nevada hasn't increased student achievement.
12:48: Also, Gansert recommends "triggers" to increase K-12 funding with taxes come in higher than expected during the interim. Will the spending - without results, accountability or reform - ever stop?
12:55: Gansert going over more details of K-12 budget. Keeps the 5 percent pay reduction, has teachers contribute to PERS (currently teachers pay nothing for their retirement accounts) and the suspension of merit increases.
12:57: Clinger: Now we need to transfer $247 million from debt reserves. Previously, the governor had wanted to take $302.1 million from school district debt reserves.
1:00: And with impressive speed, the governor's recommendations for increasing education spending are now on NELIS.
1:01: The Committee is now taking public comment. May I recommend reading the stories of businessmen and women in Nevada who have had to deal with large reductions (not the minor reductions faced by K-12 education)? These businesspeople have to
1:07: Committee chair Debbie Smith tells White Pine CFO not to get too excited about extra money. They must keep the pressure up to raise taxes.
1:18: Some guy named Steve Laden urges Republicans to "step out of the shadows" and increase education funding.
Why is the emphasis only on funding? Seems certain lawmakers are only interested in how much Nevada spends, not the results Nevada's students achieve.
1:27: Las Vegas Chamber lobbyist Sam McMullen now talking about the need for long-term reforms (not in education, in unfunded liabilities). He says there's been significant reform in education.
Umm... really? Where?
1:30: McMullen calls for elimination of social promotion, teacher tenure. "Seriously looking for progress and success in those."
1:31: Billy V with the Nevada Resort Association up next. Talks about the difficult decisions his companies have had to make and then pivots to wanting more money for education. Worried about the debt reserve.
1:32: Billy V. focusing on Nevada's spending rankings.
This is what's so telling -- all the talk is on education funding, not education results. NPRI is focused on results; too many are focused on funding.
1:35: Billy V. says education is an "investment."
Groan. Have you seen the return on the investment Nevada is getting? We've tripled per-pupil, inflation-adjusted spending and results are stagnant or worse. Reform is needed.
1:37: Horsford gearing up to give an "impassioned" speech. Apologizes for implying Republicans are against the same things he's for. Says he respects the governor.
1:41: Horsford: "Ask one more time: To find that balanced solution together, because our kids deserve it."
Groan. We've tripled K-12 education spending without results! What more do you want? Where are the real reforms?
1:44: Proposal to redirect IP1 funding to the general fund now being discussed. Reminder: Advisory question only voted on in a few counties.
1:47: Horsford wants to take the $221.5 million from IP1 that Sandoval would use for General Fund revenues and dedicate it to the DSA. Seems like this would be a net wash (reserve the right to change this analysis if the details change) as General Fund monies than wouldn't have to be used for the DSA.
Motion passes.
2:08: Committee now discussing Sandoval's block grant program.
2:10: Ben K.: School districts like flexibility and districts like to have the ability to direct how money is spent.
Chairwoman Smith opposes giving districts flexibility, prefers to tell districts how to spend their money.
Looks like Republicans support local control. Democrats? We'll find out soon...
2:12: Question answered: Horsford opposes.
2:15: Sounds like a party line vote to oppose local control (R's for, D's opposed). And to think, some wonder why spending more doesn't increase student achievement?
2:17: Party-line vote to oppose block grant program.
2:19: On to Sandoval's performance pay plan ($20 million for FY13). Sen. Cegvaske moves to approve it. Oceguera seconds. Horsford supports.
2:23: Asm. Aizley opposes because the test isn't specified. A potentially good point: To be fair, the test needs to be a value-added assessment.
2:29: Motion passes. Moving on to full-day kindergarten. Sen. Ben K. motions to increase funding to full-day kindergarten. Reminder: Full-day kindergarten is a waste of money as any learning gains are gone by third grade.
2:43: Cegvaske rips the majority for calling this meeting with less than 24 hours notice and not allowing the budget division to process the governor's budget amendment. Assemblywoman Smith fires back. Smith hints at "additional revenue" down the road.
2:54: Smith refuses to elaborate on the D's plan to raise taxes. She says it will be obvious soon that there is not enough money.
2:58: D's vote to oppose Sandoval's recommendation to reduce funding to "Other state education programs" by $2.3 million. Still refuse to offer a tax plan or their preferred alternative.
3:03: DSA budget coming up soon. That's where the real action is going to be. The list of accounts being closed is now available on NELIS.
3:06: Now talking about the DSA. Up first: Taking money from the school district's debt service funds (p. 23 on the NELIS document).
3:14: Horsford won't support the governor's gimmick of taking of money from school district's debt service funds. Cites the will of the people.
3:18: While Horsford makes good points on the substance here (taking debt service money isn't prudent budgeting), it's beyond ironic to hear him cite the "will of the people" when he's going back on the promise he made in 2008 not to raise taxes when the economy was struggling.
3:26: Roll call vote called. Can't hear responses, but I assume D's will support NOT using the debt service money and R's will support it. Leaves $247 million hole in the governor's budget.
3:28: Onto the basic support per-pupil in the DSA funding.
3:38: Unanimous support for reducing DSA funding to the levels recommended by the Governor after today's revisions.
3:40: Now they're talking about requiring teachers to fund a portion (25 percent) of their PERS contribution. In contrast, state workers pay 50 percent of their pension costs.
3:45: Requiring a PERS contribution from teachers passes. Looks like five percent reduction for teacher pay won't.
4:00: Finally, some real world wisdom. Assembly Hardy says he had to layoff over 200 employees in the last few years. Says he's probably personally supported schools more than anyone else in that room.
4:10: Sen. Horsford asks, Why not do both more funding and reforms? Hints that Nevada needs a way to come together and hold parents accountable. Where is he going with that? Parenting directed by those in Carson City?
4:12: Party-line vote (I assume, I can't hear what they're saying) to reject a 5 percent pay cut.
4:14: Party-line vote (I assume again) to reject increase of merit pay increases. Merit being a completely misleading word, because those raises are based on getting degrees and showing up, not on performance.
4:19: By my quick calculations, the hole in Sandoval's budget is now $650 - 700 million, depending on the amount of debt reserves Sandoval still needs to take.
4:48: The hearing is wrapping up and here's the takeaway. By my quick calculations (I'll need to look at the documentation tomorrow), the Democrats have put a $700 million hole in Sandoval's budget, which would increase, INCREASE, K-12 education spending by $386.7 million (7+ percent increase) over the current biennium.
With Nevada's private sector struggling with 13+ percent unemployment and some private sector employees facing salary reductions of 50 percent or more, Nevada's Democrats want to spend more without increasing results or accountability.
How will it play out? We'll find out soon enough. Sandoval is giving a speech tonight at 6 pm.
NPRI analyst urges fiscal responsibility with increased Economic Forum revenue projections
NPRI's press release on the news that the Economic Forum is projecting that Nevada will collect over $330 million more in tax revenues than the Forum projected in December:
LAS VEGAS - In response to the Nevada Economic Forum's projection that Nevada will have approximately $300 million more available for General Fund spending in the next biennium, Geoffrey Lawrence, the deputy director of policy at the Nevada Policy Research Institute, urged lawmakers to exercise fiscal responsibility:
"While it is encouraging to see that the Economic Forum is projecting modest private-sector growth for the Silver State over the next two years, which will result in additional state tax revenues, lawmakers should exercise restraint and budget prudently around those projections.
"Governor Brian Sandoval's Executive Budget proposal deserves praise for reining in the rapid growth in state spending and, thereby, protecting Nevadans from higher tax rates that would inevitably worsen the state's unemployment figures and stymie recovery. However, the Executive Budget also contains several objectionable gimmicks - foremost of which is a $190 million loan against future insurance premium tax revenues. This borrow-and-spend tactic will hurt the state's long-term outlook as the governor protects an inefficient spending structure and burdens future legislatures with debt.
"In 2005, lawmakers increased inflation-adjusted, per-capita General Fund spending by more than 30 percent. While Gov. Sandoval's budget proposal would bring Nevada's spending closer to the state's historic trend line, more can be done."
Earlier this year, NPRI highlighted how Nevada can save more than $3.5 billion in taxpayer resources during the next budget cycle through specific recommendations highlighted in its "Better Budgeting for Better Results" policy study.
"As presentations to the Economic Forum detailed, the individuals making up Nevada's economy are still dealing with numerous challenges, including rising gas and food prices and a struggling housing market," said Lawrence. "Also, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that Nevada's "effective" unemployment rate is 23.7 percent.
"Nevada policymakers owe it to their constituents to consider the historical evidence showing that increased spending has not led to superior results in the major policy areas pursued by Silver State government. In the last 50 years, for instance, Nevada has nearly tripled its inflation-adjusted, per-pupil K-12 education spending, but results have remained stagnant or even deteriorated. Despite the increased funding, Nevada's graduation rate has fallen to under 42 percent - worst in the country.
"Elected officials need to realize that the state's methods of spending are flawed and that wholesale structural reform is necessary, especially in the areas of K-12 and higher education, labor compensation, Medicaid, and public works finance.
"Upon hearing the news that additional revenues may be available for the next budget cycle, many policymakers will likely rush to spend that money through an expansion of programs. The first priority of lawmakers and the governor, however, should be to eradicate the borrow-and-spend tactics that have been incorporated into the current budget proposal. Prudence requires that elected officials meet the state's fiscal challenges this legislative session and do not push them off onto future legislatures.
"There are many ideas in the Better Budgeting study for meeting current budget challenges with available revenues. New projections from the Economic Forum suggesting that additional revenues are available does not in any way diminish the validity of these recommendations, nor the importance of safeguarding taxpayers from excess and abuse."
The bell tolls for the Las Vegas Monorail
Guest post by Doug French, president of the Mises Institute and longtime NPRI contributor. Original available at Mises Economics Blog.
Despite the project opening in July of 2004 when the town was en fuego, the nearly 4-mile monorail never attracted enough riders to make bond payments. Mass transit up and down the Las Vegas Strip sounds like it would be a stone cold lock, but the do-gooders that implemented the project didn't listen to casino owners like Sheldon Adelson and Tom Elardi who suggested the monorail run right down the median of the Strip between the north and south lanes.
It not only would have taken pressure off surface street traffic, which can take hours to transverse on busy weekend nights, but it would have been a tourist attraction. What a great way to see the Strip. The monorail would have been packed every evening.
Anyone who has taken the monorail knows that it, instead, runs behind the Strip properties and doesn't extend to the McCarran Airport, which would be an enormous benefit for tourists, who would gladly pay to ride it, rather than wait to take an over-priced cab ride to their hotels. But Sin City politicians know Las Vegas cabbies would quickly mobilize and protest.
The Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority (LVCVA) and the Culinary Union made sure that not only did the monorail not run down the middle of the strip, equally benefiting all Strip properties, but riders will notice that going north the elevated track swings east, avoiding Adelson's non-union Venetian Hotel, Elardi's Casino Royale, and the Sands Expo Center, a direct competitor to the LVCVA's Las Vegas Convention Center. The monorail stops conveniently at the convention center on it's way to the Sahara Hotel, a property that will go dark May 16th. The Sahara hasn't been any sort of destination since the Rat Pack roamed the Strip. But at the time the monorail project was hatched, the Sahara was owned by the late Bill Bennett.
Bennett is best known for turning Circus Circus into a money machine in the '80s and 90′s before selling it. However, the Culinary Union will always remember him for feeding striking Frontier employees who picketed the Elardi family property for more than six years. Bennett is said to have spent $1 million a year feeding picketers.
"He was a giant in the gaming industry in town and for us he was unbelievable, especially during the Frontier strike," said D. Taylor, a Culinary Union official. "One of the vital things that kept the strikers going was Mr. Bennett feeding them three times a day. You never forget that kind of generosity." The Elardi family and their in-house labor counsel haven't forgotten him either.
The monorail never cash flowed, being 10,000 riders a day short of the number needed to break even. And something always seemed to go wrong, such as wheels falling off and riders being injured when the brakes locked up.
"The Las Vegas Monorail Co., a nonprofit organization, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in January 2010 after coming nowhere near close to being able to repay tax-exempt revenue bonds issued through the Nevada Department of Business and Industry in 2000," Rich Saskal wrote for The Bond Buyer in February.
Now a reorganization plan has been filed by the company "that would wipe out more than 90 percent of its $658.8 million debt but leaves hurdles to continued operation until the end of the decade," writes Tim O'Reiley for the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
Even with the debt slashed by 90 percent, the monorail will not generate enough cash to service the remaining debt and cover needed refurbishing of fare collection equipment and platform doors estimated to cost between $23.1 million and $77.5 million.
"From 2007 through 2010, revenues dropped 25 percent to $23.6 million in operating income slumped 65 percent to $4.3 million," writes O'Reiley. "Passenger counts went down by a third to 5.2 million."
If the project seemed dicey more than a decade ago, at least the bonds were insured against default by Ambac Assurance Corp. However, Ambac itself filed Chapter 11 Bankruptcy on November 8th of last year. Las Vegas Monorail bondholders are prepared to accept $111 million and release Ambac Assurance Corp. from its exposure to the defaulted bonds.
Bill Bennett passed on in late 2002. The Sahara will go in a couple weeks, and the monorail looks not to be far behind. Plenty of D. Taylor's Culinary Union members remain idle and the LVCVA has had to cut back. Its furloughed union workers want to be paid for the days they were laid off and refuse to negotiate for pay cuts.
Casino Royale still packs in gamblers, offering the best gaming value on the Strip, and Sheldon Adelson was paid $11.4 million last year. His family's stake in Las Vegas Sands is currently worth $20.5 billion. The Elardi and Adelson properties remain non-union.
Bin Laden dead; God bless the Navy SEALs
Hoo-ah! The news is everywhere, and here's something you might not have seen yet - the US Naval Academy's Commandant's speech after Bin Laden's death. Enjoy.
LCB confirms: As NV's K-12 spending has increased, results have decreased
And the findings of the Legislative Counsel Bureau, which is the official research arm of the Legislature, show these spending increases were substantial.
And even that might be too generous. Education Week reports that Nevada's graduation rate dropped from 65.7 percent in 1997 to 41.8 percent in 2007 - a shocking 23.9 percent decrease. Also during this time period, Nevada's scores on the NAEP fourth-grade reading test have been stagnant.
These findings of the LCB confirm what NPRI has been seeing for years, but they're especially timely now. That's because if Monday's Economic Forum revenue projections come back higher, our elected officials are likely going to put those tax dollars into education.
While some may claim this is important, the above statistics from the LCB confirm that spending more on K-12 education hasn't improved student learning in Nevada. Instead of dumping more money into a failing system, Nevada needs to institute proven education reforms if it wants to increase student achievement.
Also with about $500 million of very objectionable gimmicks in the governor's budget (a $200 million loan and taking $300 million from school district debt service reserves), Gov. Sandoval and the Legislature would be better off using any extra money projected by the Economic Forum to eliminate these one-time revenue instruments.
The LCB didn't just decide to conduct and publish this research, either. Assemblyman Ira Hansen requested that the LCB find out this information about Nevada's education spending. He then sent it to all of the members of the Assembly and submitted it into the record during a recent Assembly Committee of the Whole meeting.
Let's hope taxpayers thank Assemblyman Hansen for his work obtaining and publicizing this information and that each and every member of the Legislature and the public considers these facts.
Democrats supported using money from schools' capital funds for operating costs in 2010
I've been going through the Assembly Democrats' information sheet on K-12 education funding, which uses brazen distortions to claim there's a $1.37 billion reduction to K-12 education spending in Gov. Brian Sandoval's budget, and came across this nugget.
The 2009 Legislature, during the 26th Special Session, approved the use of a total of $45 million of Clark County School District capital projects funds as local funds available for operating purposes during the 2009-11 biennium.In his proposed budget, Sandoval wants to use about $300 million from school districts' debt service account for operating funds.
During this session, Democrats have rightly pointed out that using this one-time money is a gimmick and a poor way to budget.
It's just ironic that the gimmick legislative Democrats are denouncing now is very similar to the one they used a year ago (money in the capital projects fund comes from selling bonds and money in the debt service account is used to pay those bonds off). This is a moment worthy of The Captain Louis Renault Award.
The real answer is to reduce spending, ideally down to pre-2005 levels, through performance-based budgeting.
Why pre-2005? Because in 2005, Nevada raised inflation-adjusted, per capita spending by 30 percent (pgs. 5-6).
That level of spending wasn't sustainable then and isn't sustainable now, as these gimmicks - from members of both parties - show.
