There's never a tax-and-spend liberal around when you need one

Dina Titus announced an economic development plan, or more accurately, an economic diversification plan, Wednesday. Some of it looks reasonable, some of it looks rhetorical, and some of it looks inordinately rural-centric, which is understandable in a statewide campaign, s'pose. The details, such as they are, are in her release, and pasted for your reading pleasure after the jump.

The acknowledgment that the state should be trying to diversify to attract not just more jobs, but more better-paying jobs, is in and of itself a move forward; Nevada's economic diversification efforts historically have consisted of little more than jumping up and down and yelling "We don't have an income tax! We don't have an income tax."

But we would have liked to see something a little more aggressive. Economic diversification tends to be a chicken or egg thing -- a textured economy featuring a wide variety of rewarding and good-paying careers (as opposed to jobs) relies on an educated work force. But an educated work force is looking for rewarding, good-paying careers (as opposed to jobs). Nevada is deficient on both scores, so which, if either, is likely to happen first, and how?

This is why when we said the other day that the Gleaner economic development plan consists of taxing giant national and multinational corporations that do business in Nevada but don't pay much in the way of taxes, and then throwing the money at education, we were, well, serious. Other than a hint here and there -- "strengthen university engineering programs," "invest in the K-12 education system" -- the Titus plan carefully avoids any detailed discussion of the fact that, as the bidness folks say, you've got to spend money to make money.

Yeah yeah yeah, voters don't want to spend money. But voters would love nothing more than to see their kids grow up and land some employment that makes them want to get up and get after it every day because they like what they're doing -- sort of like the Gleaner, but with a paycheck. Nevada might mosey along, and through the sheer critical mass of growth, eventually develop economic opportunities that are not just more rewarding quantitatively, but qualitatively. But with exceptions that are far too few, that hasn't been the pattern. When it comes to economic diversification, the ol' invisible hand has dropped the ball.

Sure, we've got growth up the yazoo. But growth and change are not the same thing. Change is going to cost some money, and at some point, it would be nice if somebody said so.

The Dina Titus economic development plan, as laid out in a release Wednesday:

• Identify industries in fields with the best promise for expanding Nevada’s economy through an impartial assessment of Nevada’s strengths and weaknesses.
• Align university research with economic development goals and expedite technology transfer from universities to the marketplace, using the best ideas of Nevada researchers to grow new companies in fields such as bio-technology, renewable energy, communications and environmental technology.
• Tighten requirements for companies to qualify for the current state business relocation incentive package, so that companies must guarantee they will pay an average wage at least equal to the state average wage.
• Create incentives for small companies to provide health care insurance for their employees, and incentives for all companies to offer on-site day care.
• Establish better access to venture capital for start-up businesses through participation by the private sector in a “Fund for Nevada” that would make loans to startup companies fitting Nevada’s economic development strategy.
• Capitalize on Nevada’s wealth of renewable energy resources to create a new industry in the operation and supply of renewable energy power plants.
• Strengthen university engineering programs while expanding occupational education in high school and community colleges.
• Invest in the K-12 education system by attracting and retaining the best teachers, who will help Nevada’s youth become the educated workforce needed in a new economy.
• Establish a Rural Nevada E-Linkage Initiative, providing incentives to telecommunications companies to upgrade services in rural Nevada, allowing rural communities to attract companies that do most of their business electronically.
• Dedicate state transportation funds to spur development of inter-modal transport facilities (rail, highway and air transportation) in Southern Nevada, Northern Nevada and rural Nevada. These inter-modal transportation centers would serve as catalysts for companies such as consumer product manufacturers, medical device manufacturers and others to locate in the state.

Comments

[Myrna the Minx]

Halleluja!

[Not Bob]

Funny that Gibson's flack's response is to accuse Dina of being too much of an environmentalist and not enough of a builder of, well, condos, strip malls and factories on pristine desert land.

[Homer Simpson]

But I thought Jim Gibson was the greatest inventor of parks since Teddy Roosevelt and John Muir?

[CollegeStudent]

When pandering produces a few good ideas, is it still pandering? Are they still good ideas?

[Not Bob]

Yea, but College Student which are the good ideas? Limiting development to preserve the natural environment ...or opposing a limit on development that would preserve the natural environment because it would increase housing prices? I can't see how it can be both at the same time. I guess thats the pandering part, right?

[CollegeStudent]

Damn right.
Titus' shotgun approach to policy, shooting out everything she can think of trying to hit every issue, is entangling her in a web of conflicting proposals.
And speaking of pandering, now the only "real" democrat in the primary is proposing a faith based initiative but jumped all over Gibson for touting his faith.
She can't be both more liberal and more conservative than he is. It just doesn't work like that.

[Not Bob]

College Student, thats the first time I've ever, ever heard anyone complain that someone is proposing too much policy in a campaign. But I guess some of us look for that.

As for "jumping all over Gibson," thats unadultered bullshit. Titus never ever ever ever ever ever ever said a word not one not never about Gibson's religion. Gibson put out the release and articles by Ralston, Damon and Cooligan about the mailer asked the Gibson camp to whom it was sent and got no response.

You remind me of the line from the new Dixie Chicks

Its a sad, sad world when a mother can teach her child to hate someone she's never met.

Admit it - you hate Titus. THe only question that remains is why. Just out of curiousity, College Student have you ever voted in a Democratic primary before?

[CollegeStudent]

No, I used to be Green Party

[Beastie]

Hey Not Bob did Titus ever say a word about Gibson's religion, I don't think you made it clear if she did or not? Why would you even have to ask someone why they hate Titus? Have you ever heard her speak?

[Not Bob]

Beastie, not once never not once not never noway nohow not in a million years. In short, no.

As for why you hate her, what do you mean? The way she speaks? True she doesn't convey the passion of a Jim Gibson, but then again we can't all have that natural gift for inspiration.

Beastie, your turn. Have you ever voted in a democratic primary before? Will you vote for Titus when she wins the nomination? OR is it the case that you're only interested in this to undermine one person whom you don't like apparently because she's a woman.

[Beastie]

Titus is abrasive, obnoxious, and just a rude person, and also happens to be a hypocrit. Yes I have voted in a democratic primary. You may not like me but don't say I hate women, I have 4 nieces, 3 sisters, a mom, a grandma, about 20 or some female cousins and I love evry single one of them, and would do anything for them. I will vote for Titus if she were to make it to the general, but I really hope, and don't think, that it is going to happen.